Skip to main content

Full text of "Louis XVII ; or, The Arab Jew"

See other formats






Presented to the 


by the 











Tombstone in the Old Cemetery at Delft. 
I Oth August, 1845. 


LOUIS xvir 






















G. W. 

zoth August, 1908. 


FIFTEEN years ago I learnt to write Braille. I 
had many blind friends, principally through my 
friendship with a family in Gisors, Josset by name. 
One of the members of this numerous family was 
and is a very talented and original composer, 
" chef de musique " to that admirable Institution 
for Incurable Children in the Rue Lecourbe, Paris. 
One of his blind pupils, a youth of sixteen, Jules 
Rousseau, was appointed organist at Gisors (page 
31). Intelligent and talented, he soon found the 
way to my heart, and I loved, as I still love, to 
sing his lovely compositions, of which I have, on his 
behalf, presented copies in Braille notation to the 
National Lending Library in the Queen's Road. 

"Noel" with French and English words. 

" A Floral Sanctuary" (Jardin a" amour), 
published by Weekes & Co., 14 Hanover Street, 
Regent Street. 

" Ma Poupee," words by a dear deaf and blind 
friend of mine, Bertha Galeron de Calonne, author 
of a charming volume of poems, " Dans ma nuit," 
published for her by Carmen Sylva, Queen of 


Rousseau is a very prolific composer, but, when 
one has no money to spend in advertisement, 
nobody and nothing can hope to become a financial 
success, and one has to live resignedly in obscurity. 

Louis XVII. and his career having been, I may 
say, one of my principal occupations, and my blind 
friends knowing no more than what " Policy " and 
Politics had inculcated into the unsuspicious and 
ignorant general public mind : that is to say, done 
to death by a brutal cobbler, Simon, on the 9th of 
June, 1795 (see pages 16-30). I made up my 
mind to set them right. Simon, as is evident, 
could not have caused the death of this poor 
child ; as, not only when he was relieved of his 
functions of "Tutor " to the young Prince on the 
19th January, 1794, the Archives prove that the 
child was in the best of health, but that Simon 
was guillotined on the 27th July, 1794, almost 
seventeen months before the sick child, substituted 
for the Prince on the 4th June, 1795, died on the 

I then learnt to write Braille, so as to be able to 
copy books and articles about Louis XVII. for 
Jules Rousseau, with a kind of vague and senti- 
mental idea that, through one who was blind, the 
truth might one day permeate. At all events it 
enabled me to ventilate my pet " hobby " into 
sympathetic ears. 



But, alas ! not long after I had got quite 
proficient, an accident to my hands crippled them 

Since the 5th May, 1897, my right hand is never 
out of pain ; the thumb and index are stiff. Both 
hands are very weak. I write slowly and with 
great difficulty, always in pain. I could not play 
the piano at all for eight years. I could neither 
sew nor knit ; for six months I could not write at 
all. My health (I never was anything but delicate) 
was further impaired by being pitched on my head 
on board one of the London, Brighton, and South 
Coast Railway Co.'s boats, from Dieppe to New- 
haven. Needless to say, I could no longer use the 
11 stile." The jar it caused put that pleasant 
occupation which gave so many others so much 
pleasure for ever out of the question. 

The accident was due entirely to the wilful 
negligence of the Company. I did not for one 
moment suppose I was crippled for life, but I 
thought it would be wise and for the general good 
to draw the attention of a Judge and Jury to the 
preventable dangers by sea, which cause many 
accidents not known or not realised as due to the 
carelessness childish carelessness of Companies. 
I wrote a sixteen-page pamphlet at the time, which 
I will send to anyone who may wish for confirma- 
tion of what I say (page 15) as to Judicial Cynicism 
(2d. free). 


I brought an action to recover damages for what 
I thought at the time an accident of little conse- 
quence, requesting the Jury to add a rider to the 
effect that certain steps should be taken for the 
purpose of preventing such in future. 

The Judge brutalised me from the first word to 
the last ; ridiculed me ; prevented Counsel (for 
the Company) cross-examining me ; made out I 
lived by bringing bogus actions against rich 
Companies ; I had no chance of getting my 
"rider " considered by the Jury, and was cast 
in about 200 costs to the Company. 

The whole case exists in shorthand, and will 
some day form one of the voluminous volumes I 
have gradually collected portraits to the life of 
the ways in " Chambers " and in Courts of Justice, 
as practised in the nineteenth century. 

These "cases of mine " will prove to the world 
that Louis XVII. 's "Case" is no "isolated" or 
"exceptional" one, and that, as the Appendix, 
(page 88) relates, will satisfy it that " Old Times " 
(although old) are, at the present time, treated to 

No wonder there is so much opposition to 
" VOTES FOB WOMEN." The new brooms are 
sure to stir a great deal of refuse ! More than 
will be pleasing or creditable to the male portion 
of the community. 

The women, will, perhaps, gain sufficient in- 


fluence in legal flocks, sadly requiring honest 
shepherda They may succeed in reforming pro- 
cedure altogether ; do away with the farce of 
" Chambers " altogether (Chambers of which 
not one man in ten thousand (let alone the 
despised woman) knows the geographical position 
or existence). They may obtain that all pleadings 
be delivered on oath ; that all Counsel, instead of 
being what they now are, privileged liars and 
blackmailers, should be bound to tell the whole 
truth ; bound not to use forged copies of forged 
documents ; bound not to mislead and mystify, to 
the best of their ability, the Jury. The last 
century has seen the spectacle of a barrister 
(Labori) raving and pleading for a Madame 
Humbert, as he raved and pleaded for Alfred 

May the women succeed in preventing such 
scandalous and intolerable spectacles. 

Jules Favre raved and pleaded for Louis XVII. 
and his family, but no one listened to him, no one 
believed him. Lawyers are considered mere 
windbags. The women may succeed in causing 
such innovations as will bring back honour to 
where there, now, is none ; where honour is 
exploded; where honour is a joke, a byword. 

The women may succeed in reinstating the Bar 
as an honourable profession. 

Is the Law an honourable profession ? 


How can it be, as long as men shut women out ? 
Their mothers their sisters, their daughters 

The men have often superior strength of muscle, 
but the women, believe me, have more moral force 
and staying power. 

Women have been (through the male's strength 
of muscle) reduced to nonentities ; but their eyes 
are beginning to open. 

Education, too, is being spread among the Blind 
the Blind endowed with more powers of thought 
and concentration than any of us who see. 

We may hope, therefore, that the future will 
never be stained with such spots such ''damned 
spots " as the case of Louis XVII. and so many 
others I could mention. 

This little work is called Louis XVII. or the 
ARAB JEW, because, in my judgment, the first 
step towards clearing the way is to brush away 
and stamp out this absurd fiction of Judaic 
descent, which, on the face of it, appears to have 
no foundation whatever. 

I remember an old " chestnut " of my infancy 
which many must have heard. 

It applies directly to the " Jew " origin of 
"Naundorff"; origin which I account for on 
precisely " similar lines " as the doctor and his 
patient of whom I record the following anecdote. 

A doctor advised a patient to keep his bed, and 
on no account to touch fish, especially shell-fish. 


On visiting him the doctor exclaimed : '* How's 
this ? I told you not to touch fish, and you've 
been eating oysters ! " 

" How do you know that ? " asked the patient. 

"Sir, I see the shells under the bed." 

Shortly after this the doctor's patient paid a visit 
to a sick friend. 

14 Ha ! " said he, " you've been eating horse, my 
poor friend." 

" Eating horse ! What do you mean ? " 

" It's no use denying it ! I see the saddle and 
bridle under the bed." 


Louis XVII. owes his supposed "Jewish taint " 
(as good Christians make out) to the fact that by 
the year 1839, when, I infer, the family du 
Coudray thought to curry favour with the Govern- 
ment of Louis Philippe by supplying a description 
of the family scapegrace, Comte de Naundorff one 
of the many names or aliases adopted by Charles 
Alexandre (see pages 52-57) during fifty years 
the Government turned the Arab Jew likeness 
into an instrument which was rightly estimated as 
one which must infallibly brand the real heir to 
the French throne as one of an abhorred and most 
unjustly despised race. The detectives at work 
very naturally got on the track of this big Arab 
Jew-looking man (believed to be a Jew), this 
N aundorff. 


The French Government seized the opportunity, 
fitted the cap on to the little fair man with blue 
eyes, impudently altered the report of the German 
Government, which had innocently replied that 
there was no * trace or evidence whatever x>f 
"Naundorff" belonging to Israel, "in spite of most 
strenuous research" 

How very tantalising ! How very irresistible to 
those great and good Christian historians who fell 
into this humiliating trap ! 

Yes ! very humiliating trap ! 

Fancy Larousse, the world- wide authority. . . . 

1st. " THB FALSB Louis XVII. Charles William Naundorff, 
Prussian, born at Neustadt-Eberswald in 1785, a locksmith's 

2nd. "Naundorff, born some time about 1786, either at 
Spandau or at Weimar." 

Then Others have it : " Born at several other places." 

"Polish Jew. 
" Prussian Jew. 
" German Jew. 
" Ignominious Jew convict. 
" Abject and creeping thing. 

"Individual with sordid hands spewed from a Geroian 
" Forger. 
" Coiner. 

" Vilest adventurer. 
" Incendiary watchmaker. 
" Thief of himself. 


" Founder of a burlesque religion. 

" Gruau de la Barre's p . 

" Protestant born in Israel. 

" Prosecuted at Brandenburg in 1824 for anon, 

" Sentenced later to three years for coining. 

" German refuse. 

" Perverted Jew, expelled from France." 

His family and descendants are treated to the 
same amenities. 

" Species : outcome of ancestral rottenness." 
<kc., &c., <fec. 

And ! all this superlative abuse heaped on the 
little fair Prince with blue eyes, because a roving 
Comte du Coudray, a tall Arab Jew-like personage 
with the " black hair and black eyes " of the 
Naundorff passport (pages 54 and 85) was be- 
lieved to be a Jew while he wandered about 
Germany for 50 years, occasionally as Camte de 
Naundorff, and believed by his family, who had 
not seen him since 1790, to have died at Delft on 
the 10th August, 1845. 

11 Jew of Neustadt-Eberswald. > 

" Jew of "Weimar," 

who, according to these historiographers : id . 

" dissolved into final putrefaction at Delft on the 10th 
August, 1845. 


There is plenty more of the same vituperation and 
abuse hurled by the patriotic French (and, of 
course, " Anti-Dreyfusards,") at the " Jew " and 
family, without in the least knowing or caring to 
know anything not even the A. B. C. of the 
subject over which they lash themselves into 
ungovernable spasms of phantom and chauvinistic 
fury ! 

A very good proof that this particular Arab 
Jew legend has faded out altogether is that I sent 
to the French " Notes and Queries " (TInterm- 
diaire des Chercheurs et Curieux 31 bis Rue Victor 
Mass6, Paris) to ask for the certificate of Charles 
Alexandra Marotte du Coudray's death, 

I wanted to see if the reply would be died at 
Delft 10th August, 1845." 

No reply whatever ; so I take it for granted 
that, like Anatole France and many other 
"authorities," they think prudence the better 
part of valour and protect themselves with the 
armour of contemptuous silence! 

This little book of mine is a humble effort to 
introduce Louis XVII., in the Cause of Eternal 
Truth, to the Blind. 

I was fortunate enough, not long ago, to make 
acquaintance with the National Lending Library 
for the Blind, and discovered that type-writing 


machines were manufactured for them. This was 
a great consolation. 

I bought one at once. 

My friends have urged me to publish it for the 
general use, so, although rather late in the day to 
appear as an author an authority as well I 
launch my attempt at literature, hoping that, 
at all events, it may serve the Cause I have at 

One remarkable trait in the Prince's character 
is his evident disdain for correcting errors. For 
instance: He has taken no pains in Perceval's 
Edition, let alone his own, to correct the spelling 
of even his wife's name ; and Mr. Perceval prints 
" Cosmier " instead of " Gommfar" or " Commier," 
as in Laurent's letter (page 40). On returning to 
France, he must have been told that the official 
sequence of his names was Louis Charles and not 
Charles-Louis (a fact of which false Dauphins had 
received due and careful coaching), but he alone 
knew he was called Charles, never Louis ; so he 
stuck to his own text. Almanach Hachette 
published in 1906 (page 349) some most interesting 
specimens of the Dauphin's handwriting. The 
signature (1793) " Louis Charles Capet" (I mean 
the way the poor intoxicated child placed the 
names) suggested to me that he had first signed 


" Charles Capet" as taught by his " tutor " Simon, 
and that, after he had done so, some other 
monster intervened and made the child add 
"Louis" in derision; he being at the time 
"King Louis XVII." His brother, the first 
Dauphin, had been christened Louis Joseph 

To give some notion of the elaborate nature of 
the " Question," due to the thousand and one 
monstrosities perpetrated against a helpless child 
and the innumerable crimes committed in the vain 
hope of crushing out the Truth (see Mr. Henri 
Provins' article in the Appendix, page 88), I inform 
my readers that Henri Provins' and Ad Lanne's 
works in Braille would make at least twenty 
volumes such as this one as for Otto Friedrichs' 
one work alone, "Correspondence of Louis XVII. with his 
family," would make at least a hundred volumes 
such as this one. 

Although the Prince's portraits after he returned 
to France in 1833 are far from pleasing, his 
letters, on the contrary, must prepossess every- 
body in his favour. He particularly appeals to 
me, his chief preoccupation being the education 
of his children and his constant lament at his own 
lack of it. 

He, however, exerted himself to educate him- 


self and his children. He succeeded wonderfully 
in many ways ; knew music as a science, played 
the harpsichord or piano, and modulated very 
well, to the astonishment of educated and 
successful musicians so says Augustus Meves. 

He kept the anniversaries of his father's death, 
ever present to his mind, in seclusion, sadness, 
and tears. 

I copy and translate the following extract from 
one of his long letters in Mr. Friedrichs' possession 
to a good friend of his at Crossen, dated 17th 
January, 1831. 

" O my friend, let me come and live through that fearful 
day at your house, so that the sight of my children should 
not bring too vividly to my mind that fatal anniversary ; my 
once happy childhood and the tears of my good mother. 
Ah ! my grief knows no bounds, and, yet, there are those 
who do not believe in me. It is for these reasons your poor 
friend desires to pass away the hours of that dreadful day." 

Some of his children were so very like hi 
father, mother, and sister, with the special 
characteristics of the Bourbon and Hapsburg 

As a specimen of his epistolary capacity, his 
kind and good heart, his spiritual life, his staunch 
belief (poor dear) in the triumph of his just 
Cause, I append a translation of the first letter 
he wrote his wife after his expulsion from France 
(see page 28). It is dated "London, 19th July, 



xviii LOUIS XVII. 

"My dear Johanna, I do not know whether you have 
been made acquainted with what occurred in Paris in June. 

" I had given strict orders that (at any rate, provisionally) 
you should not be told of the march of my destiny. I have 
now regained my freedom. I am in perfect health, thanks 
be to our eternally good and heavenly Father. 

" I myself can hardly believe in my extraordinarily good 
health. On the 15th of June I was suddenly arrested, and, 
in spite of all my friends' and legal advisers' incessant efforts, 
I was kept for twenty-five days in solitary confinement in a 
narrow cell. 

"From thence, on the 10th July, accompanied by two 
armed police officers, after a journey by diligence of three 
days and three nights without stopping, I was put on board 
a steamer, forcibly embarked at Calais, and again abandoned 
to the mercy of the winds and waves. 

"Our boat had barely sailed from port when a violent 
storm arose, with driving, very fine rain, which carried our 
boat, one moment to the top of the seething waters like a 
shuttlecock, and then precipitated her as rapidly as lightning 
to the abyss of the foaming waves. 

" You may believe me that during this terrific but splendid 
spectacle which was not new to me I was almost the only 
one on board who was not ill. Everybody seemed seized 
with anguish. Even the old and experienced Captain, when 
the boat shook and staggered, made grimaces like a man 
who, in savage haunts, attacked by a wild beast, seeks 
refuge in a tree. 

"Our boat was a steamer of 1 20 horse power, in spite of which 
the gale being in our teeth the waves were hurled, roar- 
ing like thunder, right over the vessel, and forced the immense 
machine to stop so suddenly that even the sailors lost their 
sea-legs and tumbled about as if drunk. Then the passengers, 
unlike the sailors used to the sea, were almost all taken ill 
and ... so suddenly that they vomited all over each other. 
It was pitiful to witness their staring eyes, their haggard 
looks, in which pain and despair seemed painted as if imploring 

" The scene baffles all description. 


" My companion (Marquis do Laf(5riere), an ex-Colonel of 
Napoleon's Horse, was the first to give in. On falling, his 
fine gold-embroidered cap flew into the sea. The gale lasted 
six hours, and our boat had no peace till she got into Dover 
harbour, which we reached at 3 p.m. We then landed and 
went to an hotel, where for the first time since my twenty-five 
days of suffering I at last slept in a bed, a free man. 

" From Dover, accompanied by my friend, I was driven by 
coach to Herne Bay, where we took passage for London, and 
on the 16th arrived here. 

11 As far as concerns myself, you may feel quite happy. My 
heart is as hard as stone as regards my own sufferings. I 
have a sort of feeling that my destiny has changed within me 
and lost itself. In short, my body is exempt from pains and 
aches. I sleep more soundly than ever, and I really look 
younger. Only my hair seems to tell the tale of my grief, as 
it suddenly begins to whiten all over my head. I send you a 
lock I cut off this morning to see for yourself. My whiskers 
are turning as grey as a man fifty-six or sixty years old. 

"While in gaol in Paris I sent you two thousand two hundred 
francs. Have you received these, as well as my letters ? 

" Write to me to the same address in Paris, and, as usual, do 
not trouble your head about the future. 

"With the help of Almighty God I have every hope of 
FORCING my adversaries into Court. In the meanwhile, live 
happy ; be not anxious ; trust in God and in the faithfulness 
of your husband, who truly loves you. 

" CHARLES Louis, 

" Due de Normandie" 

One word for my dear daughter Amelie. Your dear 
mother receives this letter under cover to yourself. I 
believe it will please you, although the postage you have 
to pay will be heavy. That is why I enclose an English 
" Louis" which, in this country, is called a Sovereign. The 
poor man whose head you see thereon is as little King in 
his own country as I in Morocco. But keep the coin as a 
Souvenir if it pleases you. Some months hence somebody 
who speaks French, it is true, will go to see you, but he 


speaks English as well He is also very fond of music. 
He is the young Comte de Fayolles. He is to fetch your 
brother Edward. Tell Edward to work up his French and 
English in the meanwhile. 

Best remembrances to Madame ForSt, as well as to our 
friend Eglantine, with whom I am much pleased. Tell her 
to look sharp after anyone who may call. 

Write and tell me all that goes on and what is said, 
especially about what lately took place in Paris, and you 
must never forget to tell me all about your brothers and 
sisters, as you know how I care for them and that I do so 
love to hear all about you. 

Perhaps, in spite of seeming ill-luck, your father who loves 
you may soon be amongst you again. 


Due de Normandie. 

This letter is translated from Otto Friedrichs' 
great work above alluded to. G. W. 





THERE is no figure in history so pathetic as that 
of the unfortunate little boy, the last legitimate 
Dauphin of France, second son of Louis XVI. 
and Marie Antoinette. 

He was created Duke of Normandy by his 
father at his birth and christened Charles-Louis. 
He was born on the 27th March, 1785. 

His brother, the Dauphin, had been christened 
Louis, and was called Louis by his father and 
mother. He, therefore, was called Charles. This 
is a most important fact for students of the 
" question " to consider as a means of fixing the 
identity of the personage whose life I here sum 
up in as concise a form as permits the very 
elaborate nature of the case. 

Louis Dauphin died when he was eight years 
old, poisoned, as was generally whispered, by his 


uncle, the Comte de Provence, who, throughout 
his life, seems to have been curst with an over- 
powering desire to succeed his brother, which he 
eventually did, as Louis XVIIL, by usurping the 
rights of and suppressing his nephew (styled 
Louis XVII.), after the Revolutionary Tribunal 
had sent his brother to the guillotine on January 
21st, 1793. 

It was intended that Charles Louis should reign 
as Louis. In the Prison of the Temple, the child 
was called Charles or " Monsieur Charles." 

Numerous false Dauphins were invented or 
created and made the most of for " State 
Reasons/' which seems to be a current device for 
the perpetration of the most outrageous villainy. 

Some put the number of these puppets at two 
hundred and two, which gradually simmered 
down to thirty-nine ; but, after the lapse of a 
century, the list does not appear to comprise more 
than four : 

1. "Naundorff," 

2. Augustus Meves, 

3. Richemont, 

4. Eleazar Williams. 

It is of No. 1, " Naundorff," I am now writing. 

I hope to make my readers understand that he 
and he alone could be the little boy who, with his 
family (when he was seven years and five months 
old), was imprisoned in the Temple, once the 


Palace of the Knight Templars, razed to the 
ground by that monster of toadstool growth 
spawned from ignoble Terror, Buonaparte, who 
judged it expedient to obliterate all trace of the 
fastness from which Louis XVI., His Queen and 
Madame Elisabeth had been taken to execution, 
and to which so many loyal memories sorrowfully 

I have studied most carefully every work 
concerning the various " False Dauphins." 1 
have come to the conclusion that, while Augustus 
Mves and Eleazar Williams, having been (for 
"State Reasons") persuaded that each was Louis 
XVII., were most sincere in their belief; 
Richemont, on the contrary, was a paid agent of 
the police, trained as a sort of "red herring" to 
be drawn across the scent whenever there was any 
risk of the true Dauphin becoming conspicuous. 

Augustus Mves and Eleazar Williams honestly 
avowed their ignorance and their total failure of 
memory concerning their infancy ; but Richemont 
attempted to persuade others that he not only 
recollected many things concerning the Court, but 
called himself Louis. He, moreover, signed "Louis 
Charles" insisting strongly that "Naundorff" 
was an impostor because he signed "Charles Louis" 

Now this is precisely the " Shibboleth " which 
proved " Naundorff" to be the Dauphin. He 
alone recollected that his brother was Louis and 


he diaries. He so well knew that no one but he 
and his sister were aware of this particularity, and 
he was so afraid of this " stigmata" being imitated 
and copied that he waited to escape back to 
France before he adopted what he alone knew to 
be the correct sequence of his Christian names 
(except in private letters to his family and his 
sister, letters of which the latter took no notice). 

Another " Shibboleth " is the way he formed 
his letters in the name " Louis' 1 No one can 
doubt that the same hand which, in after years, 
wrote Louis Charles and Charles Louis is the same 
which wrote Louis while in the Temple, and when 
his tutor (Abbd d'Avaux) taught the child to 
write " Louis" (the name under which it was then 
intended he should succeed his father). His 
handwriting was, also, very similar in character 
to his mother's, but the " Louis " retains, in a most 
wonderful way, the " Louis " of childhood. 

Neither the handwritings of Augustus M^ves or 
Richemont tell a tale which points to anything but 
a commercial education, whereas " Naundorff," 
who had had no education after he was separated 
from his mother in July 1793, wrote badly, like a 
person without education. I do not at all under- 
stand why Marie Antoinette's handwriting should 
have been so vulgar and ugly. 

To this little volume is added an engraving 
which represents eight portraits. 1st, The Dauphin 

II struck me that, although none of the portraits (except 
N I) can be considered at all satisfactory, they are useful 
from the following point of view. N I has the arched eye- 
brows of N 3 ; Marie Antoinette's eyebrows were very much 
arched, and N" 3 is a very unpleasant and inartistic portrait 
of " Naundorff." I think I discern in N I a faint shadow on 
the left side of the brow, as in N 3, which is strongly developed. 
N I is the authentic portrait of the Dauphin when (as is alleged) 
he was seven years old ; N" 2 is also an authentic portrait of 
the Dauphin when (as is alleged) he was seven years old. Both 
are alleged to be by Kucharski. N 2 is at Trianon. No end of 
documents are produced by the authorities to prove that these two 
portraits are of the same child, at the same age, by the same artist. I 
take it upon myself to say that it is quite impossible this documentary 
evidence can be worth the paper it is written on. Anyone with however 
small a knowledge of drawing can see at a glance that, although there is 
but scant likeness between them, the portraits of N* I and 2 cannot be 
from children of the same age nor by the same artist. N I can- 
not be more than five years old, and the other, so badly drawn, is out 
of all proportion and more like a boy 1 or even 1 2 years of age. 
N 2 is undoubtedly by Kucharski, but N I (although a dis- 
cussion of the matter has no historical importance) cannot be by 
Kucharski therefore I call it the portrait of the Dauphin, at five years 
of age, by Madame Vigce Lebrun (p. 5). N I answers the description 
generally given of the Dauphin and one confirmed by his premiere 
berceuse, Madame de Rambaud. when the Prince (49 years of age) 
was recognised by her as the child she had taken charge of at his 
birth and served till the I Oth August, 1 792. Fair curling hair, blue 
eyes, short neck, high breasted, eyebrows like the Queen, his mother. 
N 2 has dark, lank, straight hair ; it has a narrow chest altogether 
unnatural looking an enormous head, out of all proportion ; the eye- 
brows are slightly arched, the eyes dark, the mouth much larger than 
in N I . Madame de Rambaud said the child had a very small 
mouth. In N 3 the mouth is decidedly small. Unfortunately 
there is no positive profile of either N* I, 2, or 3, but what is very 
curious is, N 8 (as I believe) although believed to be Mathurin 
Bruneau, is a portrait of Marassin (p. 29), and is the very image of 
Madame Amelie (N 3's eldest daughter). N 3 said N 8 was very 
like him. Anyone can see that N* 4, 5, and 7 have dark hair (although 
N 7's was getting grey at the time the portrait was painted). The 
eyebrows in all the portraits, except N 3, are not at all arched. 





The mouths in N' 5 and 6 are very gross and may be portraits of 
the mysterious Dodd (p. 20). Bellanger, an artist, taking his rounds 
as National Guard, is alleged to have sketched the poor child he 
believed to be the Dauphin (Eleazar Williams). N 6 is a portrait 
of Eleazar Williams at a later period (p. 3). There is another of 
him when much older (very coarse and ugly, with no pretension of 
likeness to N 1). N 4 is Augustus Meves (p. 3) and N 7 
Richemont, much the best looking of all Dauphins (p. 3). Now 
people can judge for themselves ^hich of the grown up Dauphins 
most resembles N I . In a future work I shall say more about the 
likenesses of " Naundorff " and his family to the Bourbon and 
Hapsburg dynasties. 

(Pages 4 and 5) I allude to the handwriting and signatures of 
the Dauphin and " Naundorff." 

Facsimiles of a few of them will serve to illustrate what I mean. 
This is the signature of Louis XVI. 

This is the Dauphin's signature in 1 793 in the 
Temple before July, 1 793. 

There is that painful signature to which I have alluded in the 
Introduction (which shall be reproduced in a future volume) 
" Tjouis Charles Capet" (in the Temple, October, 1793). 

This is the signature which he was in the 
habit of using to his family durin 
first y ears O f n j s residence in Prussia. 

-v /^ habit of using to his family during the 


This signature he finally adopted: 

n a, 

I dare say those discriminating critics who say " All this proves 
nothing " will repeat, like so many parrots, that " Naundorff " imitated 
Louis XVI. *s signature and the Dauphin's from books. If he had 
cared to imitate, he would have copied that peculiar little sign which 
reminds me of the little dash in " " (pound sterling). 

N.B. Some revolutionary law was passed in 1791 abolishing all 
decorations ; I therefore believe both N 05 I and 2 were painted in 
1 789, and that N 2 is a portrait of the I " Dauphin. G. W. 


when he was five or six years old, by Madame 
Vige*e Lebrun ; 2nd, the Dauphin at about 
seven (though he looks a great deal older) by 
Kucharski ; 3rd, "Naundorff" at 50 years of 
age ; 4th, Augustus M ves ; 5 and 6, Eleazar 
Williams ; 7, Richemont ; 8, Mathurin Bruneau, 
who, I believe, was Marassin or Marsin. 

Mathurin Bruneau is the only one whose 

features, in the slightest degree, recall the 
Bourbon type. 

It must be evident to the most stubborn 
adversary of the glaring truth that " Naun- 
dorffs " at 50 years of age might have been 
drawn from Mme. Vige Lebrun's portrait of 
the child when he was five years old. 

I therefore start my story, having, as I conceive, 
established four undeniable proofs of the identity 
of "Naundorff" with Charles Louis, Duke of 
Normandy (as he made a point of signing all his 
letters after he made himself known to the old 
members of his father's household on his return to 
Paris in 1833 after enforced exile and imprison- 
ment during thirty-eight years). 

1st. His name Charles. 

2nd. The shape of his letters in Louis. 

3rd. His handwriting so like his mother's. 

4th. His striking likeness to the Dauphin's 
portraits at five and seven years old. 

When he married in 1818, he told his wife to 


call him "Karl" as that was what he had been 
called when a child ; so that he did not wait, as 
some might surmise, for his nurse to tell him that 
he was called Charles and not Louis, which, I 
repeat, was his brother's name. 

Floods of ink still flow fiercer and faster as 
years roll by concerning this " historical enigma." 

In my opinion it is no enigma and never was an 
enigma ; " State Reasons," too apparent and too 
numerous to be threshed out here, as in every case 
where the interests of high and mighty potentiali- 
ties are involved, are conducted on precisely the 
same lines as in far less important or interesting 
cases ; that is to say : 

1st. Puzzle and muddle. 

2nd. Lie. 

3rd. Discredit. 

4th. Imprison. 

5th. Suppress. 

6th. Persecute supporters. 

7th. Impoverish. 

8th. Steal papers. 

9th. Poison or knife. 

And last but not least, 10th. Convenient 

That is the policy of ail Governments. 

In all such nefarious dealings, the " family " 
your " own family " is bond to be your natural 
born and privileged enemy, Assisting, if not insti- 


gating, the Government to best the victim of 
" State Reasons." 

No matter how insignificant the individual, the 
same tactics are scrupulously observed. 

Therefore, to rail against Robespierre, Barras, 
Napoleon Buonaparte, Louis XVIII., Charles X., 
the Duchess of Angouleme, Louis Philippe, Louis 
Napoleon (strangely enough christened Charles 
Louis), and the Republics of 1848 and 1870, to 
denounce the Cabinets of Europe, the Vatican, at 
their head, is common-place. They merely acted 
and act according to custom. 

M. de Rochow, a Prussian Minister of State, 
declared that he would not at all like Louis 
XVII. to be acknowledged, as it would mean 
the " dishonour of every European Cabinet " ; 
but that is mere fag on de parler, mere "cant"; 
there is no such thing as honour or dishonour, 
as I myself have heard a Judge in the Court of 
Appeal state. 

He was a sensible man ! 

As long as European Cabinets have power or 
money, they can laugh at honour and dishonour 
alike, and invoke the Almighty and " State 
Reasons" for every rascality under the sun. I 
am convinced that everybody, all the Royal 
families, knew all along, and know perfectly 
well, that "Naundorff" was the most pathetic 
figure in history ; the poor little child, orphaned, 


persecuted, forced to hide as a malefactor ; 
allowed to exist only as a card which might turn 
out trumps for "State Reasons" to cheat with; 
and suppressed when he at last found refuge 
with the Government of a small State which 
took the liberty of making use of its common- 
sense and, tacitly as well as materially, assisted 
the personage they all knew to be the legitimate 
King of France. Bourbon, pur sang. 

His story has been told over and over again, or 
rather romanced over. No eye- witness 1 narrative 
has ever come to light. State reasons have 
stifled or distorted the truth concerning almost 
every single incident of his sorrowful career. 
Many a child has sobbed over the harrowing 
tale of the little Prince's sufferings, but few, even 
now over a century later have the faintest 
notion of one tithe of the desolation which 
attended him, step by step, through nearly 
fifty-five years of utter abandonment. 

When he was but five years of age, history 
records that, on hearing some one say : "I should 
fre as happy as a Queen ! " the child gravely 
observed : " Happy as a Queen, indeed ! I know 
one V T k often, often weeps ! " 

The\ vi ll ain P u 'VL Affaire du Collier" had taken 

place, ' r / e o f t> se coincidences which fore- 



shadowed the terrible French Revolution of 1789. 
No wonder the poor child often saw his mother 
shed bitter tears. 

History and " State Reasons " keep up the 
farce still records the death of this poor little 
boy on the 8th June, 1795. Well would it 
have been for him had he died in the place of 
the sick child substituted for him ! 

Here I interrupt the thread of my narrative to 
remark that authors of French Histories who 
published at the end of 1700 and beginning of 
1800 short biographical notices of Louis XVI I., 
last King of France, stated that he died on the 
9th of June, 1795, and that he had been attended 
to by one Gomier, Commier, or Gommier. 

This statement is another " Shibboleth," and a 
proof that the three letters of Laurent (printed 
further on in the course of this narrative) were 

I beg my readers to bear in mind this apparent 
digression when they come to the part where I 
tell who Laurent was and to whom these letters 
were addressed. 

Although as a child I have sobbed with all my 
heart over the tales of ill-usage the Dauphin was 
subjected to, I somehow never believed he had 
died in the Temple. 





I not only remember the death of the Duke of 
Normandy in 1845, but I must have vaguely 
heard him talked of in connection with our own 
family affairs. 

My eldest uncle, Rees Goring Thomas, married 
a Miss Esdaile whose father was a London 
banker and had dealings with Charles Louis. 
The Bank failed in 1840, thus meeting the fate of 
everything and everybody connected with this 
ill-omened Prince. In consequence of the failure 
of the Esdaile Bank, my father helped his brother 
and came abroad with my mother and their three 
children to retrench. We lived till 1852 near 
Florence. (Villa Capponi.) 

My youngest uncle, George Treherne,in 1845 
married Baronne Fr^ddrique Hildprandt, whose 
father's estate was Blattna, near Prague, where 
the Duchess d'Angouleme held her Court during 
the thirties. The Duchess d'Angouleme was in no 
particular favour, on account of her treatment 
of her brother. I have no impression of her 
being looked upon in the light of a " saint." 

Sir Thomas Sebright, who was my sister 
Florence's godfather, married Louisa Hoffman, 
daughter of the Mr. Hoffman of Dresden who 
gave lessons to the Duke of Normandy's children. 
All these were firm believers in the identity of 
Charles Louis with the young Dauphin. 

In 1852 we all went to stay with my Uncle 

' ANDIGN. 11 

George, who had bought a ChSteau in Switzerland 
on the lake of Constance from Madame Lindsey, 
who had been the 4< bonne amie " of Benjamin 

Her own special apartment was preserved (as 
it were) sacred by my uncle ; it was never used 
unless the number of guests on very special 
occasions made it necessary. I rarely had an 
opportunity of slipping in and devouring the 
contents of her prettily-bound books, which, for 
the most part, consisted of works on the 
Revolution of 1793. I had always, till the 
present year (1908), believed that I had read the 
Memoirs of General d'Andigne', which narrated how 
a skeleton, supposed to be the Dauphin's, was 
found by him and his comrades whilst digging 
in the Temple grounds in 1801. As I recollected 
that the Duke of Normandy had died in 1845, I 
knew this child's skeleton could not be the 
Dauphin's. M. Otto Friedrichs says it is im- 
possible I could have read these Memoirs, as they 
were not published till about ten years ago, and 
that I must have read Beauchesne's " Romance on 
Louis XVII.," a work of no historical value 
whatever, which contained extracts from the MS. 
of Ge'ne'ral d'Andign^. I have, however, no recol- 
lection of having heard the name of Beauchesne 


till about 25 years ago. This is a proof of how one 
forgets things and how one is apt to deceive oneself 
and others by genuine defects of memory. (More- 
over, no book had been added to this library 
(Madame Lindsey's) since 1849). 

Again : Thirty or more years ago I fell in with 
a woman whose maiden name was Helluy. Her 
father, through some trouble in his own country, 
had taken refuge in London at the time the Duke 
of Normandy and his large family were in 
England (from 1836 to 1845). This man gave 
lessons to the family, and handed down (to his 
own family) an implicit belief in the identity of 
the Prince. Charles Louis was of a most kind 
and charitable disposition. He did his utmost 
to befriend all his poor countrymen ; started a 
Bureau de Bienfaisance at 8 Newman St., Oxford 
St., to which Helluy acted as Secretary. This 
institution appears to have been the actual 
precursor of the French Hospital in London. 

I have reverted to these numerous streams 
which, from my earliest childhood, have flowed 
in and formed the vast river of my conviction and 
belief in the good faith of the Duke of Normandy. 
My memory was refreshed, perhaps, by the fact 
that my mother kept a scrap-book in which she 
pasted cuttings concerning Charles Louis from the 
newspapers of that date. 

I recollect asking my mother " Who was the 


Duke of Normandy ? " for, hunt as I might in the 
Almanach de Gotha (the foreign " Peerage "), I 
could find no trace of him or the title. 

" Hush ! Hush ! " she replied, looking about her 
as though afraid of being overheard, " don't speak 
of him. He is a very * ill-used person ! ' And in 
my small mind I wondered why it was sinful to 
be " ill-used" 

It was not one of the Ten Commandments. 

Time has unveiled this profound philosophical 
problem, as well as many others. I grew to 
understand perfectly well why it is altogether 
wrong to be ill-used by persons who are in a 
position to injure you with impunity, and who, on 
account of their wealth and honourable reputation, 
are considered incapable of doing any one any 
harm or wrong. 

My father and mother received at the Villa 
Capponi many persons who must have been 
believers in the identity of "Naundorff" as Duke 
of Normandy. Cavaliere Giuseppe Antinori was 
one of these. This Antinori figures prominently in 
a volume by Le Comte cTHerisson, Le Cabinet N&ir 
(Ollendorff). So I infer, from his frequent visits, 
that his presence was a very significant proof that 
my father and mother must have believed that 
Charles Louis, Duke of Normandy, was indeed 
the son of Louis XVI. and Marie Antoinette. I 
remember also a Marquis and Marquise de la 

u LOUIS xvn. 

Fert6, an old Madame Orloff, Lord Vernon, who 
was also very fond of talking Dante with my 
father, who made Dante a favourite study, and 
many others. Princess Mathilde (Demidoff) was 
one of my brothers' godmothers, and a great friend 
of the family. I believe I remember her husband, 
Prince Anatole. This remembrance of mine may 
be useful as a test of what a child of eight years 
old's memory is capable, for I never saw him 
from the year 1846. I describe what I recollect 
so that those who may yet recollect him may 
judge whether I am correct. About five foot ten, 
Mephistophelian-looking, spare, very black hair, 
straggling and full whiskers and moustache. I did 
not like him ! 

I recollect but vaguely anything else about 
Charles Louis till I was fifteen. I then found 
those works I have already spoken of at my 
uncle's house, which satisfied me that the Dauphin 
had not died in prison ; but he having committed 
the crime of being "ill-used," I dared not speak 
of him to any one. I read the books in secret, 
kept the story to myself, and I have no doubt, 
unless my own life, which, as I grew older, 
became almost as storm-tossed as his, had not 
opened my eyes to what the crime of being ill- 
used really signified, I should never have given 
him another thought. Strange events, however, 
connected with one of the most remarkable trials 


of modern times almost on all fours with the 
history of Louis XVII. brought me back face to 
face with the lingering memories of my child- 
hood . . . and, as time went on, every circum- 
stance in my life seemed to urge me to throw 
myself, heart and soul, into the question, and 
labour to unravel the mystery. 

At first I found it difficult to reconcile Charles 
Louis' History with the unscrupulous cynicism 
of governmental officials, judges and magistrates 
with whom he had the misfortune to come in 
contact ; but my singular legal experiences justify 
me in declaring that his experiences were but 
mere everyday occurrences about every mortal 
thing which affects any case in which any man 
or woman in good position or "highly respect- 
able, old-established firm of Solicitors" are 
concerned. Poor Charles Louis ! His very 
existence was a living reproach to all the 
crowned heads of Europe, and to, last but not 
least, his "dear, sainted sister," the Duchess of 

How could he, above all others, expect any 
kind of justice? Those who were aware of his 
existence, those who had helped the poor child 
to escape all had been, one by one, shot, 
poisoned, or otherwise disposed of. ... 

In spite of which, listen to one of the well- 
worn arguments against "Naundorffs" identity 

16 LOUIS xvn. 

with Charles Louis: "How is it no one who 
helped the child to escape has come forward to 
say so ? " Yet how simple the reply : " Because 
they were immediately suppressed they died 
or disappeared." 

So perished Generals de Frotte", de Charette, 
Hoche, Pichegru, Leclerc (who was Pauline 
Buonaparte's first husband), the Due d'Enghien, 
the Empress Josephine, the Prime Minister 
Spencer Perceval, and the Due de Berri (the 
police looking the other way while the murders 
were committed), Simon, Robespierre, Dr. Dessault 
and two of his assistants, the four bearers of 
the dead child's coffin, the grave-digger Be"tran- 
court, the Comte de Repenties, Fualdes, Abbe 
Justin, Martin, the peasant Seer of Gallardon, 
and a host of others. 

The Syndic of Crossen, Petzold (who kept all 
the Prince's documents in his safe, and warmly 
espoused Charles Louis' cause), and his secretary, 
Lauriscus, were poisoned, and all the documents 
stolen. Cle'ry (Louis XVI.'s valet) also died 
suddenly. Two other premature and sudden 
deaths or disappearances deserve to be specially 
mentioned, and I will do so further on. I mean 
Laurent and Caron. 

As Governments, one after the other, during 
this awful period of Terror, succeeded each 
other, each attempted to connive at the escape 


of the captive for their own ambitious purposes ; 
they cut off their rivals' heads because it was 
expedient that all those who aided or abetted 
the child's escape, or who might recognise him 
at a subsequent period, should be removed. For 
this purpose, the Queen, Philippe Egalit6, and 
Madame Elisabeth were sacrificed. Every 
historian has expressed astonishment as well as 
reprobation at the apparently useless and un- 
warrantable crime of guillotining Madame 
Elisabeth, but the reason is clearly convincing 
and logical. 

As long as she lived she would have stood a 
staunch friend to her poor little nephew; and 
still less excuse, in the event of his sham death, 
would there have been for not complying with 
the law, by not sending for her, as next of kin, 
to identify the corpse. 

Napoleon helped most of them out of his way 
quite as effectually as the rival chiefs of the rival 
factions did ; but the Restoration managed things 
still better. Louis XVIII., having disposed of 
Josephine, proclaimed a desire to recompense 
all those who had befriended members of the 
Bourbon family such as his " well-beloved and 
deeply-lamented nephew." By this stratagem he 
caught in his net all those cautious Royalists 
who had prudently remained silent during the 
Revolution, Consulate and Empire. These here- 


tofore prudent ones came forward loyally; but 
all those who had aided the child's evasion dis- 
appeared and were never heard of again. More- 
over, when their anxious relatives made inquiries 
at the Police Prefecture, they were told it would 
be well for them to desist. 

This occurred in the case of Caron, gobeletier 
(cup-bearer) to Louis XVI., who, not suspecting 
foul play, went to see Louis XVIII. on the 4th 
March, 1820, and disappeared for ever. 

In the seventies I was acquainted with an old 
gentleman, M. Carpier, who knew the family 
Caron well, and this M. Carpier was the person 
who first impressed me with the utter futility of 
hoping for justice or for redress, saying that, if I 
knew one quarter of what he knew, I would be as 
certain as he was that no such commodities had 
any kind of existence, from the moment a person- 
age of any calibre was at stake. I remember 
thinking he was very pessimistic ; but, after 
making the fate of Louis XVII. and his family 
my most ardent study, and going through my own 
experience, I realised that nothing too strong can 
be said against the heartless monsters who per- 
secuted that unfortunate Prince (once so beloved 
and the object of so much adulation as a dear 
little boy surrounded by courtiers and every 
luxury) during a whole existence of misery, 
penury, and hard work, even beyond the grave. 


Charles Louis wrote several accounts of his 
adventures and misfortunes; we have a descrip- 
tion of him written by several persons, notably 
Vicomte Sosthene de la Rochefoucauld and 
Augustus Meves. All these writings are unfortu- 
nately very fragmentary and very confusing. 
Charles Louis also purposely kept back a great 
deal which he had reserved for the moment when, 
were he forced to do so, he should appear in open 
Court. (The "day of Justice," as he naively 
called a day which never came, and which never 
can or will exist.) 

Charles Louis' principal work concerning him- 
self is called " An Abridged Account of the 
Misfortunes of the Dauphin," edited by Gruau de 
la Barre on behalf of the Prince, translated into 
English, and published with many interesting 
additional details by the Honourable and Rev. 
Charles George Perceval, second son of Lord 
Arden, nephew of the Prime Minister, Spencer 
Perceval, assassinated by Bellingham in 1812. In 
consequence of so many sudden and violent deaths 
having taken place, due to the knowledge the 
victims possessed of the Dauphin's existence, it 
has been inferred that the Police were purposely 
slack in their duty, and winked at the murder of 
the Prime Minister. It appeared very strange 
that the widow of Spencer Perceval (who re- 
married in 1815 General Sir H. W. Carr, K.C.B.) 


and all her children took the greatest interest in 
the Duke of Normandy and his family so much 
so that they actually pensioned the Duchess of 
Normandy to the day of her death, 8th June, 

Madame Barret, who had been Swiss governess, 
wrote to the Prime Minister's widow, Lady Carr, 
as follows, hi answer to a letter of enquiry. 

This Madame Barret lived at Belleville (near 

"You ask, milady, if I have heard anything about our 
unfortunate Prince. Tes, there is a great deal of talk 
about him. All are convinced that he is indeed the son of 
our unhappy monarch. Two years ago, a lady of high rank, 
Madame la Comtesse de Girardin , came to see me, thinking 
my mother was alive and that she could obtain from her 
some details concerning the Prince's infancy : my mother 
and grandfather lived at the Chateau. 

" This lady had had an audience of the ' Dauphine ' (Louis 
XVII.'s sister). It appears that the ' Powers ' are opposed 
to her recognising our unfortunate Prince, especially the 
King of Prussia." 


The family Perceval befriending the Prince 
confirmed belief in the cause as the reason for the 
Prime Minister's " removal," but, beyond supposing 
that he had gained his conviction from a perusal of 
the secret archives easy of access, evidently, to him 
in his position as Prime Minister, no one could 


form any conjecture why his family should adopt 
"Naundorff," when he appeared in England, 
sooner than Augustus Mves, of whom I have 
already spoken as an honest but misled false 
Dauphin who had been in England since as far 
back as 1792 or 1794. 

Why not Augustus Meves (who appears to have 
had many adherents) sooner than Naundorff? 

What secret reason prompted Lady Carr and 
her children to favour " Naundorff? " 

At last a clue has been given in a very charming 
and interesting work published in 1907 by Lady 
Dorothy Nevill : " Reminiscences of her Life," 
edited by her son, Mr. Ralph Nevill. 

This clue consists of the first letter written by 
Mrs. Atkyns, widow of the Squire of Ketteringham 
Hall, Norfolk (a most courageous and energetic 
English lady), who spent her fortune and offered 
to lay down her life for Marie Antoinette when 
the Queen was in the Conciergerie, awaiting what 
was called her "trial" by the Revolutionary 
Tribunal. This letter was written to the Prime 
Minister on the 15th April, 1807. 

There is no proof at present that Mrs. Atkyns 
ever saw the Prime Minister, and no other letter 
to him from her has been produced. But it must 
be borne in mind that there was a tacit under- 
standing to not speak or allow anything to 
transpire on such a risky subject. "Hush! 


Hush ! " said my mother when I asked her who 
was the Duke of Normandy. "Don't speak of 
him ; he is a very ill-used person." This, no 
doubt, was a generally understood policy the 
tactic of silence. Thus, even lukewarm believers 
crushed him by silence, while courtisans or 
politicians crushed him by calumny and all 
manner of persecution. 

Some say Lord Arden, the Prime Minister's 
eldest brother, destroyed his papers; others say 
his widow had them, and that she eventually 
handed them to Sir Spencer Walpole. At all 
events, nothing has transpired respecting any 
further relations this admirable woman, Mrs. 
Atkyns, may have had with the Prime Minister. 
At all events they are not forthcoming 

" State reasons ! " 

Is it far-fetched or improper to advance the 
following theory? Mrs. Atkyns could give Mr. 
Perceval a secret description of the marks on the 
Dauphin's body, which were very peculiar. The 
marks on " Naundorff's " body corresponded to 
these. This he may have found confirmed by a 
perusal of State papers concerning the Dauphin ; 
he probably told his wife all about it, and thus 
was handed down the Perceval belief and certainty 
of the identity of the true Dauphin of France. 

After Lady Carr's death in 1844 the Rev. G. 
C. Perceval, with his daughter Mary, went to 


Holland to visit the widow of the Duke of 
Normandy and her family. 

Mr. G. C. Perceval (whose only son succeeded 
his uncle, Lord Egmont, in 1875) published his 
translation of the tt Misfortunes of the Dauphin " 
in 1838. It is very superior to the French edition, 
which is very badly put together, and, at times, 
very confusing. 

And here I must not omit to remark how 
wonderfully ignorant people are and what absurd 
objections they make, and the what they are 
pleased to call reasons they give for scoffing at 
the notion of " Naundorff's " ignorance of French. 

" A King of France not know his own native 
language I The man must be an impostor ! " and 
that is one way of settling the affair. 

Now from the year 1866 to 1880 I was very 
seriously occupied with the training and education 
of children, besides which I have kept a daily 
journal since 1852. 

I therefore have a comparatively fair idea of 
what children, or a tolerably intelligent person, 
may remember. 

I do not, however, pretend that my experience 
authorises me to form an opinion of the capacities 
of Charles Louis' memory. His career was 
unique. Before he was twenty-four years of age 
he had spent seventeen years in prisons and 


dungeons always in hiding. He remained in the 
Temple for nearly three years. From the 19th 
January, 1794, till the 8th of June, 1795, he was 
claustrated in his prison without a soul to speak 
to. He must have lost all knowledge of language. 
When his sister was permitted to receive her 
former gouvernante, Madame de Tourzel, on the 
3rd September, 1795, she could hardly speak 
plain. She had been alone from May, 1794, till 
the middle of August, 1795, when Madame de 
Chantereine was appointed H.R.H.'s femme de 
chambre. She was obliged to read aloud for 
several hours a day before she attained fluency of 

As for childish memories, I am able to afford 
the following valuable testimony. 

In 1877 I took a number of English children to 
France. The eldest was twelve years old, two 
were babies in arms, and the ages of the others 
ranged from three to seven years. After a lapse 
of six months, none of the children (although 
together) could speak English. At the end of a 
year they barely knew what " Yes " meant. 

So much for what children can recollect ! The 
King of France was a child, like any other child. 

That is my reply to those self-sufficient critics, 
so fond of giving their opinion upon subjects they 
know nothing about. Having, at the time the 
Prince returned to France, spoken nothing but 


German for at least twenty years, he spoke 
German and a little very bad French with a strong 
German or Alsatian accent. Although brought up 
in his own country, we have in King Edward a 
startling model of an English child with so strong 
a foreign accent that it seems hardly possible he 
can have had proper training. So dear, good, 
thinking people, do not lay down the law against 
Louis XVII. because his accent was, like King 
Edward's, that of a foreigner. I do not know 
what language he spoke between the years 1795 
and 1810, but it may have been Swiss French or 
German, which would naturally come to him as 
easily as French his mother being an Arch- 
Duchess of Austria. 

In any case he would have had to relearn 

If any one desires to possess tests of and judge 
other people's memories, let them keep a journal 
for fifty years. Let them read their own old 
letters, and then they will realise what their 
"remarkably fine memories" are worth! From 
one week to another people forget to tell the most 
trivial adventure in the same way ; they do not 
intend to deceive, but they forget a faded story. 
So the story fades from week to week and year to 
year, till no longer recognisable ; then, as has 
happened to Charles Louis, who, as all other 
human beings, remembered one day some incident 


in one way and on some other day the same kind 
of incident in a different way, he is immediately 
criticised, even by his staunchest supporters, as a 
man who did not always adhere to the truth. 

I know too well what a freak memory is. I 
also know how Judges pat witnesses on the back 
for pretending to have bad memories delighted, 
these Judges, with anybody who will adhere to the 
time-honoured policy of puzzling, confusing, 
muddling, lying, discrediting the litigant on whose 
side the money does not lie. But if, vice versa, 
the wealthy litigant is being "prejudiced " thereby, 
a porcupine, armed with virtuous bristles, does not 
bristle so stiff as the Judge ! The display of 
virtuous emotions becomes phenomenal. And so 
Charles Louis found out, even to preventing him 
bringing his case into Court, which "Power" 
contrived by arresting him and walking him off 
between gendarmes to British shores. 

I must not anticipate. . . . 

Charles Louis had a remarkable memory. This 
(as is considered) " unusually good " memory has 
been made another of the strong arguments (strong 
in their ignorance) against him. "He could not 
Iiave remembered this or that himself! He must 
haYe been coached by some dupe or intriguer. 
He W as an impudent impostor ! " 

It steads to reason that no one can be qualified 
to give ar 1 opinion, founded on any kind of basis, 


of what a man fifty years of age may recollect 
of a childhood from which he was suddenly cut off 
at the tender age of seven. 

Historians, whose business and interests have 
led them to talk the most egregious twaddle 
concerning the fictitious death of Louis XVII. in 
1795, writing contemptuously concerning false 
Dauphins (among which they assiduously class 
"Naundorff ") have, either ignorantly or dishonestly, 
and certainly falsely, asserted that " NaundorfFs " 
history was but a repetition of the same stories 
circulated by police agents of false Dauphins, of 
which but three call for remark. 

These three lads afterwards men were 
Hervagault, Mathurin Bruneau, and Claude 
Perrein. Some say that the three were different 
impersonations of Richemont, always ready at hand 
to be arrested, cast into prison, tried, sentenced 
as impostors whenever there was any chance of 
" Naundorff " making a sensation. Besides these 
three impersonations, Richemont used another 
dozen of pseudonyms or aliases. 

These governmental prosecutions of Richemont 
and the shirking of prosecution in the case of 
"Naundorff" is one of the clinchers in "NaundorfFs" 
favour. Not only would no one prosecute him 
as an impostor, but when he, tired of writing 
to his sister, finally put himself upon his 
trial and entered an action in the 1st Tribunal 

28 LOUIS xvn. 

of the Seine to show cause why the n 
certificate of his alleged death as Louis diaries 
Capet should not be annulled and he himself 
declared to be Charles Louis, Duke of Normandy, 
he was arrested, walked out of the country, two 
hundred and two documents seized, and so 
effectually gagged was he ! ... 

These documents were stolen from him and 
were never restored to him, in spite of all his 
legal and loyal advisers could say. In vain they 
protested against such arbitrary and illegal 
measures ; they never succeeded in getting listened 

Louis Philippe was afraid of the real heir to the 
throne, and kept the whole affair as quiet as 
possible, while Richemont would be ostentatiously 
tried for pretending to be the son of Louis XVI. 
and sentenced to gaol, from which he soon 

Louis Philippe was turned off the French 
throne in 1848 and fled to England, where he 
knew he was sure to be warmly welcomed, if only 
to reward him for his conduct towards Louis 
XVII. There were other cogent reasons why the 
English Government espoused Louis Philippe's 

To return to the three lads above mentioned. 
These three fellows, with the assistance of the 
police, remind me of one of Maskelyne & 


Cooke's juggles. They all impersonated each 
other, and I could never tell exactly which was 
which ! Neither has the question any historical 
importance. Historical research has proved that 
it was the French Government's policy to make 
a target of a false Dauphin whenever the true one 
showed signs of moving. 

I am not of the opinion, however, that Mathurin 
Bruneau himself ever appeared in Court. The 
portrait of Mathurin Bruneau (No. 8 in the plate) 
is, I believe, a portrait of Marassin or Marsin, the 
young man Charles Louis had trained to im- 
personate him ; for he (M. B.) is not the least like 
any of the other Pretenders. His profile has a 
decided Bourbon type, and he may have been the 
young man who, Charles Louis says, resembled 
him (about the same height, build, and fair 


It is quite clear that Lafayette and Tom Paine 
before the execution of Louis XVI. were the first 
to plan the Dauphin's escape from the Temple. 
A deaf and dumb boy, the son of Maria Dodd, a 
charwoman, was procured as a substitute so as to 
facilitate the Dauphin's escape from prison. But 
although it was easy enough to get boys Jnto the 
Temple, it was a most difficult undertaking to get 
the Dauphin out. 



There are few who have not read the pitiful 
tale of how, one night, in July 1793, while the 
little King was fast asleep, monsters in human 
form, sent by the Convention, tore the agonised 
child from his wretched mother, aunt, and sister, 
to place him in charge of an uncouth cobbler, 
Antoine Simon by name. 

Had Simon and his wife been the most charm- 
ing and distinguished personages, the proceeding 
was most cruel and barbarous. Picture the 
despair of a boy, eight years old, upon whom 
every tender attention, every loving adulation, 
had, till that awful moment, been lavished the 
only solace and darling of his widowed mother 
at finding himself removed for ever from her 
idolising care and thrust into the company of 
a low, brutal hooligan who, to hide his kindly 
intentions, was forced to victimise the poor little 
fellow and make him drunk so that the Con- 
vention might, through the filthy and unnatural 
admissions put into the child's mouth, find some 
pretext for sending his mother to the scaffold. 

Several motives are given for Simon and his 
wife leaving the captive on the 19th January, 
1794, but the real reason was, no doubt, to 
better manoeuvre the escape of the child. Simon's 
wife, in after years, testified to having got him 
out of the Temple ; but if she did get a child 
out that day, I believe the child had been 


changed. That child was taken by a relation 
of Simon to the Generals of the Vendean armies, 
where it was recognised not to be the Dauphin. 
A farmer's wife at Gisors, in Normandy, where 
I lived for many years, told me she had known 
Simon's daughter by his first wife (not the one 
who looked after the Dauphin). But Mr. G. 
Len6tre, well known as an ardent searcher of 
documents and archives, says Simon's wives had, 
neither of them, any children. This woman, 
whoever she may have been, had told her her 
mother helped to save Monsieur Louis XVII. 
from the Temple. 

From the day the Simons left, the child was 
kept in solitary confinement. The windows of 
his prison were boarded up so as to darken the 
room and prevent any of the National Guard 
discerning his features. 

The patrol was so arranged that no one Guard 
would be on duty twice in six months. The 
child's food was pushed through a hole made in 
the door, and there he was left till the 27th July, 
1794, solitary and forsaken for six months. 

Simon had not succeeded, as he had hoped, 
in finding a way for him to escape. He was 
guillotined the same day as Robespierre, who was 
plotting to obtain the child for his own ambitious 
purposes, in connivance with the Comte de 
Provence, who would have made very short 


work of his nephew, one part of the arrangement 
being a marriage between Madame Royale, the 
little King's sister, and Robespierre. 

The boy and his sister were studiously kept 
apart, and neither had seen the other for nearly 
two years, when the alleged death of Louis 
Charles Capet took place on the 8th June, 1795. 

When Barras came into power on the 27th 
July, 1794, he had the child cleaned, properly 
looked after, and appointed Laurent, a young 
man, countryman of Josephine de Beauharnais, 
to be attendant-in-chief to him and his sister. 
They were, notwithstanding this relaxation of 
severity, not allowed to see each other. Why 
not? These two children could not be looked 
upon as dangerous conspirators against the 
Republic. What reason could there have been 
but the continuation of the same plan for sub- 
stituting a dying child for the young King and 
thus succeed in delivering him from his prison! . . . 

Josephine was Barras' mistress. Whatever her 
motives were, she planned the King's escape and 
used her influence with Barras towards that end. 

Young Laurent was very kind to both the boy 
and his sister. My theory is that neither he nor 
Josephine trusted Barras, and that they made him 
believe, as early as the 31st October, 1794 (when 
the first substitution took place), that the King 
had escaped. 

1st SUBSTITUTION, 31st OCT., 1794 33 

Laurent had simply moved the child up to the 
fourth storey of the Great Tower of the Temple 
a large barn-like structure filled with old furniture 
of every description. Laurent therein, and among 
all this old lumber, disposed a place where he 
concealed the child. There he remained without 
fire during the whole winter. No one could 
approach this den except on all fours. Several 
old servants of Louis XVI. were employed in 
the kitchens and elsewhere ; Caron, of whom I 
have already narrated the sinister disappearance, 
was one of them. Then Tison, who had been 
imprisoned with the Princesses, was still in prison 
when Laurent got his appointment Laurent was 
kind to him also, so Laurent had plenty of allies 
inside as well as outside the prison. 

As soon as Charles Louis was safely ensconced 
in this loft, Laurent began to clamour for another 
attendant to be adjoined to him, on the plea that 
the responsibility of guarding the prisoners was 
too great for him alone. He had put first a wax 
figure, then a deaf and dumb boy, in the place of 
the Dauphin. Between the 1st November, 1794, 
and the 8th June, 1795, the boy must have been 
changed several tunes. At one time there must 
have been three boys at least in the prison and 
palace of the Temple. 

In 1801, as I have already mentioned, a skeleton 
was found by General d'Andigne and his fellow- 

34 LOUIS xvn. 

prisoners buried about 5 feet beneath the surface. 
He describes it as that of a " big child" and one 
of his comrades kept a little bone as a relic of the 
skeleton, believing, at the time, it was that of 
" Monseigneur le Dauphin." But no one ever 
heard any more of this little bone, so I conclude 
all these gentlemen subsequently came to the 
conclusion that it could not have been the 
skeleton of the young King. Charles Louis was 
a very small boy. The description could not 
apply to him. But there is another child a 
mysterious child, about which I have never been 
able to discover anything. Sometimes I have 
thought this child might have been Augustus 
Meves. The boy I allude to was a third son of 
the Comtesse d'Artois (a Princess of the House 
of Savoy). The Due d'Angoulme and Due de 
Berri were her two eldest sons. Her husband 
(later Charles X.), a man of very loose morals 
himself, refused to acknowledge this boy as his 
(This incident Charles Louis recalls in one of his 
letters, along with the black moustache ol the 
Comtesse de Provence, which had struck his 
childish brain). Augustus MeVes, who was 
brought up by persons evidently in touch with 
the " Affair of the Queen's necklace," muddles 
up this family skeleton and talks of a third son of 
Marie Antoinette called Le Due de Bourgogne. 
May this skeleton have been that of this big 


child, and may he have been murdered and 
surreptitiously buried in the Temple of which, 
before the Revolution, the Comte d'Artois was 
Grand Prieur ? 

Charles Louis, in his Memoirs, tries to give an 
accurate account of his childhood, the journey to 
Varennes, and the ignominious return to Paris ; 
the time passed in the National Assembly ; his 
imprisonment in the Temple ; his father's dying 
farewell ; the separation from his mother and his 
treatment by his rough guardians, Simon and his 
wife, who were not the inhuman monsters early 
historians of the Revolution represented them to 
be. I hope I may live to copy for the blind this 
very interesting work as edited by the Rev. G. C. 

One very important incident I must quote as 
happening on the journey to Varennes. His 
mother dressed him as a girl and told him to say, 
if any one asked, his name was Aglde. His sister 
was to say she was AnnMie. No history had 
divulged this fact till 1823, when it was re- 
corded in, what is alleged to be, the Duchesse 
d'Angoule'me's Memoirs. In 1819 the Prince's 
first child was born. He had written to his sister 
apprising her of news which gave him great joy, 
and told her that he should have the child 
christened Amtlie in remembrance of the name 
she had borne during the fatal journey to 


Varennes (four years before this detail luad 'been 

If that is not another unanswerable proof of 
identity, I should like to be told what is? 

Another instance, I think, will come in here 

M. de Joly was the last Minister of Justice in 
the reign of Louis XVI. 

When the Prince met him again after he escaped 
back into France, M. de Joly rather distrusted 
a French King who spoke bad French with a 
German accent ; but the Minister soon became 
a convert, the following incident settling his 

The Prince, speaking of the return journey from 
Varennes and their being shut up in the "loge" 
or pew of the Logographe (a newspaper who 
published the Official Reports of the Assembly), 
described his feelings of terror " at being im- 
prisoned behind bars, and that the fright had given 
him a bad dream the same night of lions and 
tigers, behind bars, striving to get at him and tear 
him to pieces." 

"You are mistaken, sir," said M. de Joly. 
"The bars were taken away before the Royal 
family was placed there." 

"I am positive of my recollection being 
correct," insisted the Prince. 

M. de Joly thereupon consulted the Archives, 


and found that the bars had been removed on the 
second day. Thus the Prince was proved right, 
and so in many instances. 

He certainly seems to have had an excellent 


Here is the best place for quoting the letters 
from Laurent to Josephine. 

There is no doubt of these letters being written 
by Laurent, but to whom they were written 
must at present remain matter for argument and 

We must take into consideration the fact that 
Josephine was the moving spirit in this perilous 
undertaking ; that it is not possible to believe 
Laurent, a very young man, was on familiar terms 
with any of the Generals anxious to deliver the 
young King from his prison. Conjecture has been 
rife as to whether or no the " General " may not 
have been Barras. There was a doubt as to whom 

the initial "B " belonged The "B ," 

some thought, meant Baron. That theory has 
been discarded, and it is now decided B. stands 
for Botot, Barras' Secretary. However, Henri 
Provins, one of the most learned authors on the 
subject, and I, without any mutual "entente," 
came to the conclusion, after years of cogitation, 
that Laurent's " General " was no other than 


Josephine, widow of General de Beauharnais. 
(He, like Josephine, was native of the 
Martinique). The original letters have not been 
traced, but these copies, although denounced 
as fabrications by the Judges, Louis Napoleon's 
myrmidons, in an action brought by the children 
of Charles Louis in 1851, have now been accepted 
as genuine by both friends and foes. My theory 
respecting the fate of the letters themselves is as 
follows : Josephine, being unaware of the atrocious 
sentiments of the Comte de Provence towards his 
nephew, sent them to his Royal Highness after the 
escape of the young King from the Temple to 
prove to him in what way she had helped the 
evasion, keeping copies thereof for herself. These 
copies found their way into the possession of a 
M. Bourbon Leblanc, an advocate, who became a 
staunch adherent and legal adviser of the Prince 
when he made his appearance in 1833. 

I beg my readers to observe that Laurent 
spells Gomiris name " Gommier or Cornmier." 
This is the "mote" which shows me which 
way the wind blew. When the young King's 
fictitious death was announced, it was stated 
to have taken place on the 9th instead of the 
(real date) 8th of June, 1795. The uncle, who 
did not take the title of Louis XVIII. till 1797 
(and then no foreign Court acknowledged him as 
such), hastened to give the information to those 


GOMIN. 39 

whose business it was to compile Histories. In 
every one of these early Histories the name 
Gomin is wrongly spelt (as in Laurent's letter), 
and the date is erroneously given as 9th of June. 
Now follows the most curious part of the story. 
Madame Royale is supposed to" have written her- 
self " The Events of the Temple." I suppose a 
manuscript exists in her handwriting. Strange 
to say, she, who knew " Gomin " so well ; 
"Gomin" who was her own special attendant; 
"Gomin" who accompanied her to Germany on 
her release from the Temple ; " Gomin " who she 
persuaded her uncle, Louis XVII I., to ennoble 
and create Monsieur "DE Pongerville," wrote 
Gomin's name as Laurent had, and the wrong 
date, 9th of June. 

So automatic must have been her mind, when 
her uncle ordained, she copied from, as I con- 
tend, HIS manuscript (of the heartless and stilted 
narrative she is supposed to have composed) the 
name of " Gomin " wrongly spelt and the wrong 
date, as published in the Histories of the period ! 

Evidently, had Joesphine known what sort of 
a gentleman she had to deal with, she would not 
have sent him those letters, or the medals she had 
had struck, by Loos, in commemoration of the 
young King's escape. These medals were found 
in Louis XVIII.'s room on his writing-table in 
the Tuileries when he fled precipitately on 


hearing that Napoleon had disembarked from 
Elba and was on his way to Paris with his 
enthusiastic soldiers. 

No 1. (Copy letter. Translation.) 
"My General, Your letter of the 6th arrived too late, 
for your first plan had just been carried out, and it was 
high time that it should. To-morrow a new guardian is 
to enter on his new functions a republican Gommier or 
Commier by name a good fellow says B . . . but I have 
no faith in such. I shall find it very embarrassing to know 
how to pass food to our P . . . but you may rest assured 
I will look after him. His assassins have been "sold," 
and the new Municipal Guards have not the least notion 
that the little deaf and dumb boy has taken the place of 
the D . . . Now, what we must do is to get him out of 
this cursed Tower. But how? B . . . tells me he can't 
assist us on account of the strict supervision. Had he to 
remain there any length of time, I should be anxious on 
account of his health, for there is not much breathing 
space in his den, where the Almighty himself could not 
find him unless He was all-powerful. He has promised me 
to die sooner than betray himself I have reasons for 
believing him. His sister knows nothing. Prudence forces 
me to speak of the little deaf and dumb boy to her as if 
he were her brother. The poor little fellow is quite happy, 
and, without knowing it, plays his part so well that the 
fresh Guards are firmly convinced he refuses to speak ; so 
that there is no danger. 

" Send me back the faithful one, for I require your help. 
Follow the advice he gives, for that is the only way to 
secure our triumph." 

" Temple Tower, 7th November, 1794." 


On the 9th of November, 1794, Gomin was 
adjoined to Laurent, who had no difficulty in 
passing off to him, as the Dauphin, the little deaf 
and dumb boy. 

As will be seen by the following letter, Gomin 
must have been party to the substitution of a 
dying child in place of the deaf and dumb boy, 
or of his successor, a sick child. 

No. 2. (Copy and translation.) 

" My General, I have just received your letter. Alas ! 
What you ask is impossible. It was an easy matter to get 
the victim upstairs ; but to get him downstairs is out of the 
question, for the supervision is so extraordinarily strict, I 
believed I had been betrayed. The Committee of General 
Safety had, as you know, sent those monsters Mathieu and 
Beverchon, accompanied by Mr. H . . . de la Meuse, for 
the purpose of identifying our deaf and dumb boy as the 
veritable son of Louis XVI. General, what is up ? Why 
this farce ? I lose myself in conjecture, and am at my 
wits' end to understand B . . . 's game. He now has taken 
into his head that the deaf and dumb boy must be got out of 
the prison and a different child, a sick one, placed in his stead. 
Have you been informed of this move ? Is it not a trap ? 
General, I am afraid of many things which might happen. 
Immense trouble is being taken to prevent any one approach- 
ing the prison of our mute for fear of the exchange becoming 
public ; for if any one seriously undertook to examine the 
child, he would soon discover that he was deaf from his 
birth, and therefore, naturally, dumb. But, to change him 
for another ! The sick child would speak. This would be 
the ruin of the one we have half saved, and me too with 


Mm ! Send our faithful one back as soon as possible with 
your opinion in writing." 

" Temple Tower, 5th February, 1795." 


Laurent, however, knowing he could count on 
those within the walls of the Temple, left on the 
31st March, 1795, and got sent far away to the 
Colonies (Windward Islands) as soon as he 
could. (He, too, died mysteriously in 1807, 
only 36 years old.) 

No. 3. (Copy letter. Translation.} 

"My General, Our mute has been successfully trans- 
ferred to the Palace of the Temple and well concealed. He 
is to remain there and, in case of danger, will pass for the 
Dauphin. To you alone, General, belongs the credit of this 
triumph. Now I feel easy. Order and I shall obey. Lasne 
can come in and replace me as soon as he pleases. The 
surest and most efficacious measures have been taken for 
the safety of the Dauphin ; so you may soon expect to see 
me, when I will give you all particulars." 

" Temple Tower, 3rd March, 1795." 


In the meanwhile, another child had replaced 
the mute, so that, when Lasne succeeded Laurent, 
he found a child he also believed to be the 
Dauphin. Gomin must have believed the 
Dauphin had been got out of the prison on 
31st October, 1794, but he may have held his 
peace as regards his fellow - servant ; he is 


DATE OF EVASION, Uth JUNE, 1795. 43 

believed to have told Madame Royale that her 
brother had been saved. Gomin, however, did 
not know the truth. Some confusion may have 
existed in her mind, if she believed her brother had 
been got out of the Temple on 31st October, 1794. 
"Naundorff" adopted the date of his evasion as 
12th June, 1795. The medal struck in com- 
memoration of his deliverance bears the date of 
8th June, 1795. Of course the child only knew 
what he was told. The Duchess did not wish to 
be enlightened ! Very natural ! Both Lasne and 
Gomin must have winked at the substitution of 
this boy ; for a dying child was smuggled in 
from the Hotel Dieu on the 4th June, and died 
on the 8th. 

On the 12th, some say this child was taken out 
of his coffin and buried in the garden. That 
version comes from the d'Andigne story of the 
skeleton. There are so many surmises of the 
way the burial was managed ; of course the 
Dauphin himself, having been given a narcotic, 
could only repeat what confused reports were 
made to him, probably, by not a single eye- 
witness or p\rsonal actor in the drama. A 
general dishing-. ip of all the different versions 
suggests the following methods to me. Charles 
Louis was let down in a basket from the lumber- 
room window to a window of the room on the 
second floor where the child lay dead. The coffin 


in which was the dead child's corpse, lay on a 
stretcher with a false bottom. The sleeping 
child was placed in this false bottom. The 
stretcher on which the coffin fitted (and ap- 
parently sank into what was the false bottom) 
was carried beyond the outside gates where the 
carriage was waiting ; the carriage drove off with 
the coffin, while Laurent and his accomplices 
quietly walked off in a contrary direction with 
the child inside the stretcher. 

Laurent, Lasne, and Gomiii all took care to 
hold their tongues. The doctors, Dessault, 
Choppart, and Doublet, had died within the 
week of Dr. Dessault's imprudent declaration 
that the child (he had been sent for to attend) 
was not the Dauphin. Dr. Dessault's third 
assistant, Dr. Abeille, ran away to New York, 
and so lived to tell the tale. The undertaker's 
men four of them died during the week the 
funeral took place. 

Historians devoted to the question have traced 
numerous other cases, unaccountable and sudden 
deaths about the same time unaccountable, except 
for the surmise that these individuals knew of or 
were concerned in the young King's escape. 

Four doctors Pelletan, Dumangin, Jeanroy and 
Lassus were employed to make a post-mortem 
examination of the corpse of the poor child. They 
worded their certificate most guardedly, so as to 



cover the medical men from reproach in the event 
of Louis XVII. coming by his birthrights. The 
King's escape was an open secret; so was the 
fate of three doctors (Dessault, Choppart, and 

No time was lost in starting the false Dauphin 
farce I 

The Government on the jth June had issued 
a proclamation ordering the arrest of all children 
about ten years of age travelling on the roads 
of France. Several were arrested and delayed 
on their journey. One of them, certainly, was 
used as decoy duck a very good proof that 
the "chase" after Dauphins was planned before 
the child died 1 

One of the doctors (Pelletan) alleged, at a 
later period, that he had abstracted the King's 
heart. He offered it to Louis XVIII. and to the 
Duchesse d'Angou!6me. As they both well knew 
Louis XVII. was alive, they did not dare accept 
the proffered gift. I am one of those who do 
not believe Dr. Pelletan stole the heart at all, 
and for the very best of reasons. 

In 1801 Hervagault (false Dauphin) made a stir. 
The Bishop of Viviers, who knew Louis XVII. 
had escaped, felt deeply interested in the youth. 
His first step was to go to Paris and consult the 
four doctors who had signed the post-mortem 
examination, and it was in consequence of 

46 LOUIS xvn. 

their replies that the good Bishop warmly 
espoused this lad's " cause." Had Dr. Pelletan 
stolen the heart of the corpse, his own little King's 
heart (as he thought it diplomatic to pretend at 
the time of the Restoration), would he not, then, 
have acquainted the Bishop with that fact ? 

The Bishop not only underwent much trouble 
on account of his taking interest in Hervagault, 
but ended by losing his position, and his end 
was tragic and mysterious. A lady I know well, 
a lady of endless experience, much considered 
in literary circles, was intimately acquainted with 
Dumangin, son of the doctor who signed the 
post-mortem. She told me that Dumangin and 
she had frequently conversed on the subject, and 
that he had told her his father had always said : 
"That child was certainly not the Dauphin." 

After Charles Louis' escape, he and the friends 
devoted to him met with terrible misfortunes, in 
spite of Josephine's protection ; but as this child of 
ten years old did not keep a journal or any record 
from 1795 till about 1810, when data began to 
assume some kind of shape, I do not consider that 
there is any object in recording what his confused 
recollections of those years seem to have been. 
I am positive I could give no satisfactory account 
of my doings from the age of 7 years old. When 
I read my journal I am quite surprised and fancy 
it can not be true. The Prince says he recollects 


he was first told of his mother's death by a young 
girl called Marie ; of his despair ; of his being 
taken to various places ; of their trying to get 
him across the sea to England ; of being brought 
back of tempests, fires, sudden deaths of Marie 
and other persons who were his kind attendants ; 
of being got into some place where they wanted 
to make him become a monk. He refused. They 
then bound him and punctured his face with fine, 
sharp instruments and poured some liquid on it 
which smarted ; it made scars which resembled 
smallpox ; his eldest daughter Amelie remembered 
putting her little fingers in the holes while sitting 
on his knees ; he hardly ever mentions names ; 
then one does not know but what they may be 
feigned names. Really he does not give any clue 
one can lay hold of except his visit to Italy to Pius 
VI. The Vatican could, if it so pleased, open its 
Archives to historical research. The Vatican 
refuses to do so, therefore we have the right 
to deduce that " Naundorff," who is the only 
" Dauphin " who left descendants, is the important 
ghost all Republican, Bonapartist, Orleanist, or 
Henriquinquist cliques have struggled to lay ! 

In vain! . . . 

In 1804 a clearer notion of his adventures and 
whereabouts may be gathered. 

On the 15th March 1804, the Duke of Enghien 
was carried off from Ettenheim at night by armed 


force and imprisoned in the fortress of Vincennes. 
In 1804, Josephine having contrived Charles 
Louis' escape from several prisons, Montinorin 
(the name the Prince gives his protector) took 
him to join the Due d'Enghien at Ettenhiem. 
Then, as narrated in the " Misfortunes of the 
Dauphin," the Due d'Enghien was assassinated, 
and he (Charles Louis) imprisoned in a loathsome 
dungeon at Vincennes till 1807, when he was again 
delivered, through Josephine's influence, by the 
faithful Montinorin. 

At the time the Duke of Enghien was murdered 
illustrated placards were circulated. I have seen 
one. One half contains " Life of Louis XVII." 
(no mention of his mock death in 1795), and, on 
the other half, " Death of the Duke of Enghien," 
in a ditch at Vincennes a common rude 
print, but, nevertheless, invaluable as a record 
corroborating this portion of Charles Louis' 

Josephine's ambition seems to have, during these 
years (1804-07), dulled her interest in the royal 
fugitive. She had planned that Napoleon should 
enact the part of General Monck, but the self- 
named Emperor fanned her ambition by proposing 
to name her son (Eugene Beauharnais) Viceroy 
of Italy, as well as his heir. 

On the 20th April, 1808, her daughter Hortense, 
whom Napoleon had married to his brother ("the 


King of Holland), gave birth to a son (believed to 
be the offspring of any one but her husband), 
afterwards Napoleon III. What strikes me as 
very significant is that this child was christened 
Charles Louis I I do not think the genuine 
Charles Louis, her protege, was ever very far from 
Josephine's or Hortense's thoughts. 

Josephine, with Fouche's connivance, had kept 
pseudo-Dauphins going, in the hope of drawing 
Napoleon off the track of the real Prince, till all 
these intrigues of friends and foes alike got so 
muddled up, I doubt if any one, except Josephine, 
had a clear notion of which was and which was not 
the Dauphin. 

In 1807 Josephine realised that Napoleon 
meant to divorce her. She knew he feared her 
revelations concerning Louis XVIL, and that he had 
unscrupulously deprived her of all her witnesses. 
She had seen Generals de Frott, de Charette, 
Hoche, Pichegru, Leclerc, the Duke of Enghien, 
Georges Cadoudal and many others ruthlessly 
sacrificed. By 1809 Laurent, Ctery, Bdtrancourt 
(the grave-digger) were all dead. This Montmorin 
alone appears to have survived, and it was with his 
assistance the captive escaped from Vincennes. 
During this three or four years' captivity Charles 
Louis had been kept in the dark; he had seen 
and spoken to no one but his silent warder, who 
he described as having a terrible gash across his 


face. This was the only clue he gave to the prison 
where he had been confined. I believe that it 
was through this man being traced as " Le 
Balafre " (which means : the man with the scar) 
that the name of the prison (where Charles Louis 
had been confined from 1804 to 1807 or 1808 was 
or must have been Vincennes) came to light. 

With this sort of treatment, surely, what can be 
expected from a youth ? Is it to be wondered at 
that he spoke badly, that he 'forgot French, that he 
did not know how to spell, that his handwriting 
was not that of a gentleman or educated person ? 

He could not realise that any one could refuse 
to acknowledge his identity : that he required 
proofs of his being his own self. If only he could 
get to his sister, he would be all right : We 
know he mistrusted his uncles, but no doubts as to 
his sister's affection crossed his mind. 

According to Montmorin's statement ("three 
years' incarceration "), we therefore have reached 
the year 1807. He was then twenty- two years of 


I think it advisable to preface the second part of 
this very condensed History by trying to make 
people understand who and what Naundorff was, 
and how it so happened that the son of the last 
legitimate ruler of France wore the mask of the 
Chief of an International Secret Police organisation 
from the year 1809 to the year 1832, that is to 
say, twenty-three years. 

Strangely enough, none of the great and 
remarkable historians who have devoted their lives 
to the question have realised the importance of, 
not so much proving that Louis XVII. could not 
be " Naundorff," but who Naundorff was. 

In a very short and concise resume of the 
question, published by Mr. W. T. Stead in Border- 
land (1894), I put or rather tried to put this 
galaxy of able, honest, tireless exponents of truth 
on the scent, and hoped to have seen more light 
shed which would have set these so much younger 
seekers than myself on a track which would 
elucidate (by documentary evidence) a fact which 
I regard proved by a close study of many works 
concerning or by " False Dauphins " ; a volume 

edited by M. Le Normant des Varannes, 



" Memoir es dune Feuille de Papier" and some 
" Souvenirs " published in 1883 by Jules Trefouel, 
who was, undoubtedly, the nephew by marriage of 
Count Charles Alexandre Marotte du Coudray, the 
second son of a Count Marotte du Coudray, 
Captain of the " Garde Royale." 

The way it is written shows, on the face of it, 
although the writer is a highly educated Frenchman, 
a total want of exactness as to dates or places. 
This marvellous jumble was related in 1878-83 by 
Jules Trefouel twenty -three years after it had 
been narrated to him by an old gentleman, eighty- 
eight years old, at good dejeuners at which, I 
opine, they degusted good bottles of wine, which 
fuddled both him and the narrator, George, elder 
brother of Charles Alexandre du Coudray. A 
more confused or contradictory history has 
not been concocted as yet by any of the 
unblushing courtiers who vie with each other 
in scheming to tranquilise the usurping Orleanist 
party. It is easy to see the man was 
genuine in his implicit belief that Count de 
Naundorff or Naundorf (sic), as he calls his 
uncle, was the " Naundorff," Louis XVII., who 
died at Delft in 1845. 

That is to say, he genuinely believed what the 
Republican Governments, Napoleon, Louis XVIII., 
Charles X., Louis Philippe, and last but not least, 
his sister, the "Duchess Cain" (as some of the 


indignant historians call the Duchess of Angouleme) 
AFFECTED to believe. 

I do not mean that these diplomatic and venal 
tricksters believed that the Louis XVII. who 
died at Delft in 1845 was Charles Alexandre 
Marotte du Coudray, but I wish my readers 
to clearly understand that all these people knew, 
as well as they knew their own names, that THAT 
Louis XVII. was the personage he had always 
declared himself to be the only son of Louis 
XVI. and Marie Antoinette. And when I say 
THEY knew, I mean that all the Cabinets in 
Europe knew who the dead martyr was. Yes, I 
mean English Cabinets successively ; after Spencer 
Perceval Pitt, Castlereagh, Melbourne, Peel, 
Palmerston, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum ; Queen 
Victoria, of course, she knew ! Does she mention 
him in her Memoirs, in her letters ? Her Majesty 
dare not I 

Besides "State Reasons" there are "Family 
Reasons." The Queen's penniless cousin, Helena 
of Mecklemburg, married the Duke of Orleans, 
who died in 1842. He was killed in a carriage 
accident. I remember the scandal caused by a 
Protestant Princess marrying a Papist d'Orleans, 
as well as the accident and pictures thereof in the 
" Illustration." 

But this Jules Tr^fouel knew from his wife's 
relatives, and especially from George (Alexandre's 


elder brother), that that scapegrace Alexandre was 
a tall, robust fellow, swarthy AS AN ARAB JEW. 
Consequently, he had "black eyes" and "black 

I especially draw my readers' attention to this 
fact, " black eyes and black, hair," because when I 
reach that part of my narrative which deals with 
the passport they will see that was the only 
sentence of that passport Louis XVII. ever heard: 
" Black eyes and black hair? Bear in mind another 
vital fact 

Louis XVII. never saw this passport. He 
never touched it. 

The Prussian Government may still be in 
possession of this formidable document; but, if 
it is, they take very good care not to produce 
what would for ever explode the "Naundorff" 

The " Druce " bubble has been legally pricked ; 
but when will the " Naundorff" bubble be officially 
pricked ? 

No need to open a coffin ! only a passport ! 

The " M&moires dune Feuilk de Papier " is edited 
by M. le Normant des Varannes. The Memoirs 
were written by a Mademoiselle Hersilie Rouy, 
who believed herself to be one of the Duchesse de 
Berri's stray offspring. She was juggled into a 


lunatic asylum (if people cannot contrive to get 
persons who are in their way into lunatic asylums, 
they get them into prison). 

This clever, sensible, and interesting lady had, 
through circumstances she minutely describes, 
acquired a wonderful knowledge of the workings 
of the Secret Police. 

One of their agents' plans was to make use of 
women whose past was equivocal, whose mouths 
were shut, whose testimony would be discredited, 
who were bound to absolute discretion and 
implicit obedience to their tyrants. 

That being the case, and M. TreTouel having 
unwittingly supplied the all important clue as to 
who the man who masqueraded as Comte de 
Naundorff was, it becomes very easy to under- 
stand how it was Louis XVII. was got safe into 
Prussia with an alias ^'"^mr- *c - - \" v - 

u O o <-> 

might have introduced him into Prussia or any 
other country as Jones, Brown, or Robinson. I 
believe I trace him, in Meves' book, under the 
name of plain Mr. Franks. This clue supplies a 
reason for supercilious scribblers such as Anatole 
France taking upon himself to inform posterity 
that "Naundorff" (Louis XVII.), the little fair 
man with blue eyes, twenty-four years old (when 
Alexandre Marotte du Coudray was forty-four), 
was a Postdam Jew! 

He meant Potsdam, I suppose, but it is strange 


how some historians seem to take particular pleasure 
iu being inaccurate, even to the spelling of names. 

Otto Friedrichs, the most enthusiastic champion 
of historical truth, who, well nigh, since thirty 
years, keeps up an incessant warfare against these 
pseudo-historians, has published work upon work 
of the most conscientious nature, and defied 
Anatole France, publicly challenging this calum- 
niator to prove that "Naundorff" was any one 
but Louis XVII. He offered to place 500 in 
the Bank, Anatole France to do likewise, as a 
guarantee of their mutual good faith and genuine 
belief in the truth of their researches (the money 
to be sent to the Mayor for charities) but the 
brave Anatole met this loyal offer with one of the 
well-worn devices mentioned in Part I. that is 
to say: "Convenient silence," or, as cowards and 
li^&jxcdJt '^ "uliv oll^nr^ .! ^ou tempi,." 

Otto Friedrichs has published several hundred 
letters of Louis XVII. to his family and private 
friends, with copious notes, annotations, and refer- 
ences. It is a colossal, monumental work. It 
shows the writer and translator to be a historian 
of extreme scrupulous accuracy. It must hand 
his name down as the most disinterested, pains- 
taking compiler of documents that ever lived. 

It will, however, not serve to crown him with 
those Academical honours with which Anatole 
France's brow is wreathed ! 


At the same time I must say (while exalting the 
work as a monument above praise) that, had he 
been able to spare the time, he would have avoided 
several mistakes notably the origin and facts 
concerning the Naundorff passport. 

Henri Provins, Ad Lanne, Osmond, Pierre 
Gaumy, Count de Cornulier - Luciniere, and 
many others have, for years, spared neither 
time nor money (their own) in their efforts to 
destroy the sinister web drawn by hosts of poisonous 
spiders round the victim of political wiles. 

True, we are all in a small minority, as were, 
for many years, the defenders of Alfred Dreyfus' 
innocence ; but Louis XVII. existed when news- 
papers, telegrams, telephones, railways and liners 
barely existed, if at all. The web has been fossil- 
ised by the poisonous slobber of these arachneens ; 
we have to chip away something more adamantine 
than pure diamonds ; but the loathsome crust is 
giving way at last, and we can say like Zola : " La 
verite est en marche I " 

Truth is in sight ! 

One by one, clues come to light, straws which 
give one some insight as to which way the wind 
blew and blows ; year by year, decade by decade, 
some document turns up. 

Oh! for the ones stolen ! Oh! for those destroyed, 
hidden nefariously secreted by " Power." 


Jules Favre, who refused all fees in his position 
as advocate to Louis XVII. and his family on 
several occasions extending over a period of 
nearly forty years, declared his conviction in 
Louis XVII.'s identity confirmed (although 
not requiring confirmation) by the papers in the 
Secret Archives which he had the opportunity of 
perusing in his official capacity. 

Lawyers are considered such liars, no one 
believed him ! 

One very thrilling incident occurred at the time 
of the Peace negotiations in 1871 between France 
and Prussia one of the many which have so 
often betokened the mysterious presence of the 
rejected Prince. 

Jules Favre had gone to meet Bismarck. 

It was the 21st January, 1871, the 78th anni- 
versary of the day the last legitimate Ruler of 
France perished on the scaffold ! 

Jules Favre had to sign whatever the victor 
dictated. He signed but he hesitated ; he 
had forgotten the Seals of the Republic ! " Never 
mind," said Bismarck, " you have a seal on your 
finger. That will do." (28th Jany., 1871). 

It was a gem, a ruby, a ring "Naundorff" 
penniless had given him as a remembrance of his 
kindly, disinterested professional services. 


A seal of the last legitimate uncrowned King of 
France ceded 36 milliards and two provinces ! 
Fate ! ? 

There is nothing very instructive in the first part of 
Charles Louis' narrative of his escape from Vincennes. 

He says he was delivered by the friend he calls 
Montmorin through Josephine (then Empress) 
and Fouche", the Chief of the Police Department. 
Buonaparte, besides the ordinary, had organised 
a company of spies independent of the general 
police. In the month of March, 1803, there were 
no less than 3692 of these very undesirable 

Charles Louis, in spite of the constant mis- 
fortunes and traitorous pitfalls into which he 
had perpetually fallen, seems to have been the 
most unsuspecting being that ever lived. He 
attributed everything that happened to chance; 
I should say Providence, in which he had a 
tenacious belief; although I and any one else, 
if they had some experience of life, of Law 
Courts or detective work, must see that he is 
for ever shadowed by friends or foes he believes 
to be benign individuals placed by Providence 
across his path. Montmorin he evidently knew 
well; but Friedrichs, Fre'ddric, or Friedrich is 
rather a mystery a poser, I allow. 


I never thought he was anything but a 
" protector " employed by Josephine and Fouch6 
to watch over him ; but, recently, very con- 
scientious research on the part of Mr. Naville and 
others seems to have elicited some evidence 
which affords some grounds for supposing this 
man was one Frederic Leschott, who had known 
Charles Louis when, as a child, the Prince 
was hidden in Switzerland. If this be the case, 
Charles Louis, for some reason, conceals the 
fact; or again as ten or fifteen years may 
have elapsed, the Prince did not recognise him. 
Fre'de'ric or Friedrichs does not appear to have 
told the Prince everything. This is a matter for 
conjecture ! 

"We shall presently come to Friedrichs. 

After the escape from the Vincennes dungeon, 
the Prince was ill for a long time. Before he had 
quite recovered and so weak he could hardly 
stand, his retreat had been discovered and he was 
forced to fly. 

Montmorin took him to Frankfort on the Main, 
where they rested a few days. They there changed 
their clothes at a Jew's, where they bought 
a greatcoat. Between the lining of the collar 
Montmorin sewed papers which were to serve as 
proofs of the Prince's identity papers, I infer, 


Montmorin had, somehow, kept safe for years. 
Montmorin told him he had been in this dungeon 
over three years. It was then spring. The date 
is uncertain. 

This is what he told him at Frankfort. 

As the Due d'Enghien had been murdered end 
of March, 1804, Charles Louis, according to this 
statement, must have been released some time in 
1807 ; so they must have been knocking about two 
years before they made for Prussia. It is no 
wonder, after the frightful privations he endured 
in this dungeon, that he should have been so long 
ill. The miracle is that he survived to tell the 
tale, which he does very graphically, but which is 
not worth while repeating anyone can imagine 
how anyone looked who had been all but starved ; 
no companions but rats, which he tamed, and no 
change of clothes or boots no bed, no blankets 
for 3 years. 

Horrible ! 

He mildly remarks that he was twenty-four 
years old, and that during those years he had 
spent seventeen in captivity; for even when he 
was not actually in gaol he was in hiding and lived 
in fear of his life. Josephine, when it dawned 
upon her that Napoleon meant to divorce her, 
renewed her efforts to release the Prince and keep 
him as a kind of menace to Napoleon. 


When, at Frankfort, they received money from 
France, they set out (on what the Prince calls the 
road to Bohemia) for a town in the valley of the 
Elbe, where they found a man who gave them a 
letter for the Duke of Brunswick, who they saw, 
and who provided them with a letter for Prussia, 
where it is plain Montmorin had intended in the 
first instance to take the Prince. 

They then rested in a little town called Semnicht 
on the Austrian frontier. 

From thence they went to Dresden, but were 
refused entrance to the town. 

They then had to go a long way round to reach 
Prussia. They came to a village, and went to an 
inn. (He forgets the name of both.) 

They arrived there in the evening very tired, 
and soon went to bed. They had not been asleep 
very long before they were arrested as spies and 
marched off to the quarters where Major von 
Schill had pitched his tent that very evening. 
(He was killed at Stralsund one good reason why 
the Prince could not have brought him forward 
as a witness !) 

Montmorin gave the Major the Duke of 
Brunswick's letter. The Major received them 
most graciously. 

This Prussian corps of Hussars was then attacked 
by the Westphalian army ; the Major was obliged 
to retire, the Prince and Montmorin accompanying 


him, but, as the Major was anxious as to their 
safety, he made up his mind to send them with a 
cavairy escort back to the Duke of Brunswick. 
The Prince says the name of the commanding 
officer was Veptel or V6tel but he hardly ever 
gets a name right, and I believe it was Wedel. 
(Wedel Jarlsberg.) 

However, the escort was attacked ; Montmorin, 
as he believes, was killed, and he dangerously 

He lost his senses from a blow on his head 
while struggling to free himself from his horse, 
which had fallen with him, shot dead in the 
mlee, administered by a soldier on foot with the 
butt end of his musket. 

They had encountered a regiment of one of 
Napoleon's regular troops, who treated as free- 
shooters or marauders those foreign or French 
troops which were opposed to the Empire and 
loyal to the ancient monarchy of France. 


When the Prince recovered his senses he found 
himself in a hospital, unable to move. He had 
been placed at the bottom of a waggon and 
carted off to the fortress Wesel, on the French 
frontier. He writes : 

" There were men belonging to the army of the Duke of 
Brunswick, or of Schill, and these poor fellows were, illegally 


by Napoleon's orders, sentenced to the galleys at Toulon. 
I was one of the unfortunate victims of his despotism, 
without knowing why. 

" We were transferred to the interior of France by forced 
marches ; installed, like malefactors, in prisons at night. 
I had not a penny. I had been robbed of everything on the 
battlefield except my greatcoat, which I found on my 
miserable pallet in the Wesel Hospital." 

This was the greatcoat he had bought of the 
Jew at Frankfort, into the collar of which 
Montmorin had sewn his precious papers. 

The captives were so roughly handled en route 
by the French troops that even those who wished 
to show them a little consideration were assailed 
by shouts of: u They are scamps belonging to 
Brunswick and Schill's bands." 

The Prince, having barely recovered from his 
wounds, broke down entirely, and was left for dead 
on the road near some village from which he was 
taken to the town Hospital. He was too far 
gone to speak. 

He here meets again with a Hussar of Schill's 
regiment, who had also been wounded and taken 
prisoner, whose name was Friedrichs. The 
Prince writes : 

"He was simply called Fre'de'ric: Friedrichs soon re- 
cognised me ; feeling sure of my discretion, he persuaded 
me to desert with him. As soon as I got better, one night 
while a violent thunderstorm was raging we made our escape. 
We hid ourselves in a cellar, etc." 


They finally got away, but in jumping from a 
wall the unlucky Prince sprained his foot very 
badly, so badly that Friedrichs had to carry him 
on his shoulders. He reached some bushes, where 
he set the sufferer's foot, bandaging it up as well 
as he could. They thought they had walked a 
long way, but when the day dawned they found, to 
their great chagrin, they had only been going round 
and round, to find themselves in the same place. 

They suffered during several days torture from 
thirst, hunger, and fatigue. Fortunately the corn 
was ripe, but the apples were very sour. 

It must therefore have been the month of 
September, so that, since April, five months 
had elapsed since he, with Montmorin, had set 
out for Prussia ! 

I do not like to say anything which might 
appear to disparage the ardent researches of a 
fellow - student who considers that there is good 
proof of Fre'de'ric being a Frederic Leschott, a 
Swiss, an old acquaintance of the Prince. 
Nothing the Prince says lends support to that 

Charles Louis plainly described him as a 
Berliner who happened to be in Schill's troop. 
He says his name was Friedrichs with an S. 
As we proceed we shall see that the Prince 
generally puts an S where there is none. If 


he were a Berliner his name would be Friedrich ; 
why he should have been FrSdtric I cannot 

My own belief has always been that Friedrich 
was an emissary of Josephine and Fouche* bent on 
the same errand as Montmorin, namely, getting 
the Prince safely hidden in Prussia. I here 
mention that a few days before she suddenly 
died in 1814, Josephine had told the Czar 
Alexander that Louis XVII. was safe in Prussia. 

The Prince and his companion had neither 
money nor passports. They slept by day, and 
trudged at night on the road to Friedrichs' 

In the day-time Friedrichs would go forth to 
forage, and would return with " plenty of bread, 
cheese, fruits, etc." I have wondered whether he 
carried these provisions in a knapsack ; he must 
have carried them in something. 

They reach at last the Westphalian frontier. 
They had tramped all night. The rain had poured 
in torrents ; as the day dawned they came to a 
forest where they were fortunate enough to find 
an old oak tree with so large a hole at the roots 
that they could both lie down in it. There they 
remained hidden till Friedrich could start on his 
foraging rounds. 

The Prince asked him that morning if they 
were still far from Berlin. Friedrich replied : 


" As soon as we shall have crossed the Westphalian 
frontier, we shall be able to travel without fear; and if, 
perchance, we were arrested and asked what we were, we 
would reply Prussian deserters, as that would hasten our 
arrival at Berlin." 

Which meant that, if they were arrested, they 
would be comfortably guided and taken to Berlin 
by the gendarmes. 

About 9 o'clock that morning Friedrich sallied 
forth in quest of food, without his knapsack. The 
Prince then slept peacefully for some time. 

What occurs now, in my opinion (although 
the Prince attributes all this series of unusual 
occurrences to Providence watching over him), 
is all pre-arranged ; and that, when Friedrich 
disappears, he leaves the Prince in good hands 
and returns to Josephine to report to her the final 
success of his mission. 

If he is the Swiss Fr^de*ric, he had purposely 
misled the Prince in telling him he was from 
Berlin. The Prince, on arrival in that town, must 
have discovered the subterfuge. So he, having 
reached a place and people he knew (through, 
probably, belonging to the Secret Police), he and 
his affiliated get the Prince into Prussia in such an 
artful manner that it never crossed the Prince's 
mind at any time of his existence that he was 
passed into Prussia through a long-laid and well- 
concerted plan. 


That day the Prince was awakened by a big 
dog, who, by his loud barks, drew his master's 
attention to the spot where he lay hidden. 

This, I suggest, occurred through Friedrich 
having given the hound's master something 
belonging to the Prince, and putting them on 
the track. 

The hound's master came up to the tree, helped 
the traveller out of it, and asked him how he came 
there. The Prince felt terribly alarmed too 
alarmed to speak. The shepherd, as the Prince 
believed him to be, kindly smiled, and told him 
not to be frightened. " If you are what I suppose," 
said he, " you find in me a friend." He kindly 
took the Prince's hand, who replied what 
Friedrich had told him to say : "I am a Prussian 

" Oh ! oh ! " said the shepherd ; "you mean a 
Westphalian deserter? " 

The Prince felt very much embarrassed. 

" Don't be anxious," said the shepherd. " I too 
had a son in the Westphalian army, but if he is alive 
he is in Spain just now with Napoleon's army." 

He asked the Prince to accompany him to his 
home, and to stay with him a few days, saying 
he would hide him in his hay loft. The Prince 
said he would gladly accept his offer, but that he 
had a companion, and must wait till his friend 


The shepherd then volunteered to seek him, 
which he did, but soon returned with the sad 
intelligence that his friend had been seized by the 
Strickreiter or gendarmes. 

The Prince was very much distressed ; he sadly 
followed his new friend to his cottage, where he 
remained three days. 

On the morning of the third day, the shepherd, 
fearing his presence might be remarked, advised 
him to leave. 

The good man took him to the road, showed 
him the way he should take, and gave him some 
kindly advice. He specially impressed upon him 
that if he were asked to what town he belonged, 
to reply "from WE I MAE" It turned out that 
the passport "Naundorff" stated that Charles 
William was son of Godefroy Naundorjf, native of 
WEIMAR. WEIMAR may therefore be considered 
as the " password " of this transaction. 

2F.B. The Prince, as usual, put an S where 
there is none ! 

He handed the Prince three silver coins and 
Friedrictis knapsack ! 

This is, again, one of those glaring pieces of 
circumstantial evidence, hinted by me in that short 
article I wrote for Mr. Stead in 1894, but which 
till now (1908) has not opened anyone's eyes. 

The Prince in these repeated coincidences had 
seen nothing but the hand of an ever- watchful 


and benign Providence ; and all students of the 
question, although not so sure as the Prince was 
of the kindly or pleasing attentions of a beneficent 
Creator, have accepted his frame of mind and 
never suspected that Montmorin, Friedrichs, the 
good shepherd, and several others I shall presently 
introduce on the scene were all in the secret, 
scheming with the same favourable object, namely, 
getting the Prince safely into Prussia, which 
Charles Louis knew was Josephine's and Fouche"'s 

So that all those who helped him into Prussia, 
in his eyes, were unwittingly carrying out a plan 
of action Josephine had decided on with the 
connivance of Fouch6, Minister of the Police 
Department, and whom Napoleon believed to be 
his own ame damnke. Charles Louis, therefore, 
set forth on his road to Berlin, vid Saxony, where, 
the shepherd had told him, he had nothing to 
fear from interference on the part of the 
gendarmes. He had ardently desired to go in 
search of Friedrich, if only to give him his knapsack, 
but the shepherd so dissuaded him from making 
the attempt (which, evidently, would have been a 
wild-goose expedition) that he gave it up. 

The shepherd had taken possession of it ; and 
that is how it was Charles Louis resumed his 
journey with his companion's knapsack and three 
silver coins. 


Friedrichs having strongly recommended him 
to do so, he had made up his mind to enlist in the 
Prussian army. (This, evidently, was another pre- 
arrangement of the well-intentioned conspirators). 

Well ! the poor little man trudged along, making 
his way with a good deal of difficulty, as, when 
he asked his way, the people did not appear to 
understand him. He lost his way in a forest 
(the forest of Diebingen), gathering blackberries, 
which he had never seen before, I suppose, as 
he minutely describes them as "a sort of black 
raspberry which grew on thickly-thorned brambles." 

He had lost his way, when fortunately he heard 
a postillion's horn, which guided him back into the 
high road. In the distance he then perceived a 
post-chaise. He sadly sat down and waited on a 
a stone engraved "Doctor Martin Luther." 

I wonder no ardent Louisdixsepttiste has made a 
pilgrimage to the spot and acquired it as a most 
interesting memento I 

I often think of it, and wonder ! 

Is it still there, after nearly a century ? 

The post-chaise came rattling along. The 
Prince stopped the chaise and asked the postillion 
if he was on the right road for Berlin. 

"A young man," (these are the exact words of the 
Prince's narrative), "the occupier of the chaise, called 
out: 'Stop! Here, Schvfager' (a familiar expression 


of the country signifying ' my good fellow ' lit. 
transl. brother-in-law). He then began to ask me 
many questions, either from curiosity or from the pity my 
sad plight must have inspired. He appeared so touched by 
my recital, he offered me the seat beside him, and said he 
would take me as far as Wittenberg. I accepted without 
demur, and got into the carriage." 

I interrupt the Prince's narrative by asking my 
readers to particularly remark that he, a young 
man twenty-four years of age, refers to this man 
as "a young man." 

Query: 1st. Would a young man allude to a 
man twenty years older than himself as "a 
young man ? " 

2. If this man plied him with questions, was it 
not because he had been despatched by the 
shepherd after a traveller unknown to him, and 
wanted to make sure he had traced the right man, 
who looked like a beggar, before offering him a 

" As soon as we resumed our journey, he said to me : Did 
you observe the stone you were sitting on? It is rather 
curious. I made some insignificant reply. Do you not 
belong to this country ? he asked. I am from WISMAR, I 
replied. From WEIMAR, you mean and the youth 
smiled. What have you got in that knapsack? I really 
do not know. It belongs to my companion and I have not 
opened it. Gracious me ! not opened it ! You wear a knap- 
sack and you do not know what it contains ? He then took it 
from me, and pulled out some rags ; my new protector laughed 
at me immoderately, made a great joke of it, and said he had 


better throw the knapsack away on pretence they might 
compromise me. He was going to throw the rags out of the 
window, when he suddenly stopped. Wait a bit, he cried. 
There's something in them ! He took his pen-knife and cut 
the stitches. We found, wrapped up in these various rags, 
1,600 francs in gold. At the sight of this money I felt 
thunderstruck. The stranger slyly glanced at me as if to 
read my thoughts. As for me, I had but one idea, and that 
was to restore this sum, of which I found myself in in- 
voluntary possession, and express to my excellent friend all 
the gratitude I felt for his generous proceeding. I felt bound 
to tell my present companion all that which had passed 
between me and Friedrichs since our escape. What a noble 
fellow ! Your comrade had indeed a great heart to abandon 
to you all his money before he was arrested ; at a moment, 
too, when he saw the trouble he was in. He preferred to 
lose everything sooner than run the risk of involving you in 
the same danger. What a generous soul ! "- 

(Sarcasm ? ) 


Here again I interrupt the Prince's narrative to 
remark : 

1st. How is it it does not strike everyone who 
reads this unmistakably genuine narrative that, 
if it was Friedrictis money, contained originally in 
his knapsack, why did not he tell the Prince he 
had it ? Why did he maraud, steal or beg, while 
he had plenty of money to pay for food or 
conveyances ? 

2nd. How is it that the new friend did not 
immediately say : But, if he had all this money, 
why travel like beggars ? 


No! say I this youth, this shepherd, this 
good and faithful Fried richs, were all members of 
the International Police, this great secret organ- 
isation which moved its pawns as it pleased on 
the chessboard of Europe. They were acting in 
obedience with Fouche*'s orders; and, beyond 
telling the Prince, Fouche" and Josephine protected 
him, they did not let him into their secrets or way 
of working. The accidental mishaps could not be 
avoided. The unexpected could not be guarded 
against Montmorin may or may not have been 
killed, as the Prince believed he was. In some 
mysterious way Friedrichs turned up ; the Frank- 
fort greatcoat with the precious contents of the 
collar was preserved ; the good shepherd finds 
him the very day Friedrichs disappears. 

He is at his journey's end ! 

3rd. Who put the 1600 francs into Friedrichs' 
knapsack? I say: "The good shepherd" and the 
youth knew it ! 

I resume the Prince's narrative : 

"When we reached Wittenberg I went with the young 
traveller to an inn, 'The Bunch of Golden Grapes.' We 
shared the same room. My first care was to get a change of 
clothes. The youth himself shaved me and brushed my hair, 
and I was soon transformed into something presentable. 

" Now, said this benevolent stranger, how are you going 
to manage to get into Prussia ? They are very severe and 
yon have no passport. Well, we must find one." 

(The French word " trouverons " might also mean 


" supply one." The youth did not say " will lend 
you my passport.") 

(Now, please to pay great attention.) 

"He sent for somebody he knew, who lent him his 
carriage and pair, which drove me the next day to Trein 
pretzen, the first town on the Prussian frontier." 

(No. / equipage.) 

" There he put me back into his post-chaise, which drove 
me to Potsdam." (This must be the origin of the story of 
A. France's Postdam Jew.) 

(No. 2 equipage.) 

I should not be surprised to learn that Erckmann 
Chatrian's 4t Juif Polonais " had made its ap- 
pearance on the boards by this time, as Louis 
Philippe's Government conjugated " Arab Jew " 
into " Polish Jew " in 1840, which, I should say, 
would be more correct, as the original " Arab 
Jew " - looking gentleman appears to have 
frequently visited the family estates not so very far 
from Poland. He used then to call himself Baron 
of Silesia. Polish and Potsdam beginning with a 
P suggested to these discriminating historians the 
transformation of " Le Comte de Naundorff" into 
the "Prussian Jew," Naundorff! According to 
Jules Tr^fouel, this discreditable relation of his 
wife's family had been knocking about for fifty 
years as a sort of wandering Jew all over Europe ; 


it is therefore not surprising that Louis Philippe's 
police took the liberty of twisting the Prussian 
police report in such a way as to suit itself. Any 
Government would act precisely in the same spirit ! 
To continue : 

(No. 3 equipage.) 

" From Potsdam I was driven in another private carriage 
to Berlin." 

"My friend had preceded me on horseback. He was 
waiting for me at the gates, tie gave his passport to the 
police. No questions were asked. The carriage passed 
through the barrier, and I found myself within the Prussian 

How wonderful that such a dilapidated-looking 
beggar should find so many private carriages placed 
at his disposal ! " The sight of the lovely alley of lime 
trees. ..." (N.B. The leaves, I take it, were still 
on the trees, and there is evidence to show that 
he arrived in Berlin in 1809. I mention this 
particularly, as I cannot obtain any precise date 
concerning his arrival in that city). 

" The sight of the lovely alley of lime trees, the number 
of fine palaces, the traffic, the dresses and equipages of the 
higher classes ; this spectacle, so novel, so striking to a poor 
prisoner at last finding a haven of refuge after escaping 
from a thousand dangers all became objects of contem- 
plation and delicious wonder which bestowed on me the 
blessed forgetfulness of self. It was in the midst of this 
ecstatic dream that I followed my generous unknown into 
the Hotel of the Black Eagle, where he took a room for me '' 


The unknown, on leaving the Prince, told him 
his name was Naundorff, native of WEIMAR. 

The youth promised to soon visit him, but 
he never returned. He must, however, have 
gossipped with the people at the Black Eagle, 
as the Prince found himself the object of much 
indiscreet curiosity. Voices outside his door 
disturbed his reverie ; he fancied he distinguished 
the name of Naundorff. Presently a man entered 
and asked him how long he intended staying in 
Berlin, from whence he came, and what was his 

The Prince replied that it was his intention 
to enlist in the Prussian army. "Then," said 
his questioner, " you had better obtain a ' permit 
of residence.' No doubt you have a ' passport.'" 

"My passport," replied the prince, "was left 
with the proper officers at the gates of the 

This interrogatory was made by a servant of 
the hotel-keeper. 

The man then retired, saying he would go to 
the police and obtain a ''permit of residence." 

Next day the "stranger" received some docu- 
ment, and no further questions were asked. 


After resting a few days, the Prince set about 
looking for the regiment of which Fried richs had 
spoken. He applied to the Commandant. His 
illusions were speedily dispelled. The officer was 
extremely disagreeable, and curtly informed 
him : " His Majesty never admits foreigners in 
his army." 

This reply gives rise to the conjecture that the 
Prince had told him he was French. 

The poor little man did not know what to 

do. However, he again came across Naundorff, 

to whom he recounted what had happened. 

Naundorff advised him to write to the King 


This, again, makes me conjecture, he must have 
told Naundorff who he really was. 

However, the Prince did not write to the King. 
He fell in with a watchmaker, Pretz by name, 
who advised him that as he had acquired some 
knowledge of, and a taste for, watchmaking, he 
had better set himself up in business at 52 Schutzen 
Strasse. Another watchmaker, Weiler, helped 
him so well that by the end of 1810 he was so 
well supplied with work that his business had 
become quite a flourishing one. 

It was then, for the first time, he began to 
realise days, weeks, months, and years, and to 
fix dates to events as they occurred. 

It was at the end of 1810 the police interfered 


with him. He had to apply for a license to carry 
on his trade. Weiler advised him to claim the 
right of Burghership. He was required to 
produce his birth certificate, passport, and a 
certificate of good conduct from the Magistrate 
of the last town he had lived in. Of course he 
possessed no such papers. 

He then consulted Madame Sonnenfeld, and 
asked what he should do. 

Now this is how he happened to know 
Madame Sonnenfeld. The Prince appears to 
have occasionally met this young man Naundorff 
about the town, who one day gave him a letter 
for his sister (as he said), who, as he was obliged 
to leave suddenly for some time, he should like 
him to become acquainted with. 

"A few days afterwards, she called at my place, and 
asked for M. Naundorff. When she saw me, she thought 
she had made a mistake, and said it was M. Naundorff she 
wished to see." 

The Prince replied " That's me ! ' 

She nearly fainted away. Her face was drawn 
with the most painful anxiety, and she repeated 
in agonised tones : 

" You, M. Naundorff! You, M. Naundorff! " 

"Are you Madame Sonnenfeld ? " asked the 

' This question appeared to upset her worse than 
ever ; she turned pale, her head fell on her breast, she 
all but fainted away. I then gave her Naundorff s 


letter. He had deceived us both. Explanation became 
necessary. She was a woman at least fifty years of age, 
and had a son who made her very unhappy. I told her 
how alone and unhappy I was. She generously consented 
to come and keep house for me." 

Through reading the book I have already 
mentioned, " Memoir es dune Feuille de Papier" I 
became absolutely convinced that the poor 
woman was one of those I have described 
(page 55), doomed, as a sort of instrument, to 
carry out the behests of a great Secret Police 

The Prince gives no clue whatever as to who or 
what she was, except that she was the widow of a 
watchmaker of Rattsweil. Whether this son was 
her husband's ; whether she ever was married ; 
whether Naundorff was father of this son (who was 
born in 1790, as some say I have not seen his 
birth certificate) ; how long she had lived with 
Naundorff; what this Naundorff was like ; what 
became of her son ; nothing at present is known. 
That is the mine I should have explored before 
wasting words in proving that this little fair man 
with blue eyes was the son of Louis XVI. and 
Marie Antoinette. 


Who was Naundorff? When in 1835 the 
Prince's friends travelled round Germany seeking 
for evidence of the Prince's antecedents, it was the 


re de Naundorff they should have sought. 
When Jules TrfoueTs volume, published in 1883, 
appeared, then was the time to seek for informa- 
tion concerning this " Comte de Naundorff," this 
tall, robust-looking man, this Arab Jew ! the 
original Jew of Potsdam, or Postdam, as Anatole 
France, the great Academical luminary, prefers to 
spell it. 

This narrative of Jules Tr^fouel was looked 
upon by the " Naundorffists " (as we are derisively 
dubbed, just as the sensible folk to whom Dreyfus' 
innocence was palpable from the first were dubbed 
" Dreyfusards ") as a Richemont partizan and 
vowed to contempt and execration. 

Yet, HE, unwittingly, was holding out the key 
which would have unlocked, and may yet unlock, 
the secret of the duality of " Naundorff." Where 
did this big dark man, Charles Alexandre Marotte 
du Coudray, Comte de .Naundorff, die ? Very 
probably in Transylvania. It was certainly 
not the big dark Arab Jew-looking man who 
died at Delft, 10th August, 1845. 

The little fair man never heard of " Comte de 
Naundorff." Whoever the " young man " may 
have been, he said his name was Naundorff plain 
Naundorff of Weimar. He could not have been 
Naundorff; but the passport was found, forged, 
begged, or stolen, just as any other in the Police's 
pigeon holes might be. Madame Sonnenfeld, as 


far as I or anyone else can tell, was never 
confronted with this " young man," the man who 
gave the Prince the letter. There is no evidence 
to show that he himself wrote that letter. There 
is no evidence, except that of Jules Tr^foueTs, that 
any one else ever bore the name of any Naundorff 
about whom there was any doubt or mystery. 
As there must have been some such name in police 
annals, how is it the police hide their knowledge 
and their archives ? The evidence, in my opinion, 
shows conclusively that the "young man" could 
not have been the " Comte de Naundorff" in 1810 
(when he disappears), 45 years of age (whereas the 
Prince was 25) ; that the passport was, for the 
time being, merely a provisional one ; Josephine 
was alive, Napoleon had grown too powerful for 
her. Menace on her part would have been un- 
availing, so she bided her time ; she knew her 
protege was safe, and that, if a propitious 
opportunity presented itself, she could seize it. 

That is what she did. A.S soon as Napoleon was 
safe in Elba, she told the Emperor of Russia that 
Louis XVII. was safe in Prussia. 

Then the " unexpected " happened. She died 
within the week of her uttering those imprudent 
words. Louis XVIII. was determined to reign. 

No matter to him what terms he made with the 
victorious allies ! 

What did the passport matter to a police agent? 


The police could forge a hundred thousand 
passports if they so pleased. 

The Prince set up business as a simple watch- 
maker under the name of Naundorff plain 
Naundorff. As no one except the police have 
been vouchsafed a sight of the passport, there is 
no evidence to show whether in the description of 
the holder thereof the l< Comte de " is introduced. 
It is rather singular the name " Charles " should 
have been preserved throughout, and, as we shall 
see, the officials often muddled up the two 
Christian names Charles Louis and Charles 
Guillaume Naundorff. Very frequently, too, the 
name is incorrectly spelt. 

I gather that Madame Sonnenfeld had been 
keeping house for some months before the Prince 
let her into his confidence. 

The following are his own words : 

" On hearing from my lips this revelation, Madame 
Sonnenfeld's astonishment knew no bounds. She remained 
speechless. But, after calming down, she very judiciously 
remarked that, under such circumstances, I should make a 
friend and confidant of some one in an official position who 
would dispose the State in my favour if I wished to follow 
my trade in peace. She recommended me to write to M. 
Le Coq, a Frenchman, who was Chief of the Police in 
Prussia. I followed her advice. I wrote to him, informing 
him of my real position, and requesting him to kindly make 
things straight for me. 

" M. Le Coq came at once to see me with my own 


letter. He asked me if I had written it. I replied in the 
affirmative. He then said he should like to see the proofs 
of my identity. I had saved my Frankfort great-coat ; I 
ripped up the collar in his presence ; I took out the papers 
Montmorin had therein concealed and showed them to hini, 
He recognised my mother's handwriting as well as my 
father's seal and signature. He then left me to take the 
King's commands concerning myself. The next day he 
returned and begged me to lend him these papers to show 
His Majesty. I refused, and insisted that the proper course 
was to present me to the King. He replied that my request, 
for the time being, could not be granted ; ' but,' he added, 
' you shall see him as soon as M. de Hardenberg shall have 
read your documents.' After taking the precaution to cut in 
zigzag my father's seal, of which I have always preserved 
the other half, I offered M. Le Coq all the written 
documents. He, however, took only the one in my mother's 
handwriting; he left me, promising to help me, and 
tranquilised me by promising I should not be interfered 
with, because he would himself see the Berlin Magistrates 
on my behalf. In spite of his promises, however, I was 
again summoned to appear before a magistrate. I went at 
once to M. Le Coq. He kept the summons, and assured me 
I need not feel the slightest anxiety ; that my fate would be 
decided without fail ; that the delay had occurred through 
the Prime Minister not having yet sent in his report. After 
a while the President of the Police (M. Le Coq) sent for 
me. He said : ' It is quite impossible to let you remain in 
Berlin. It would be too dangerous for you and for us, for 
no magistrate has the right to waive the obligation of producing 
the certificates required by law.' He then closely questioned 
me as to the individual who had met me in the forest near 
Diebingen. I could give him no explanation. All I knew 
was that his family name was Naundorff, native of 


WEIMAR. M. Le Coq then sent for the passport to the 
police, and advised me, for the purpose of keeping out of the 
way of my persecutors, to establish myself in some little 
town near the capital under the name of my friend. ' I can 
help you to manage this,' said he. ' I'll send you a license. 
You will then be at liberty to choose what town you prefer, 
and when the magistrate requires your certificates you will 
reply to him that you gave them to me.' I replied that I 
had not money enough to make a move. ' That's true,' he 
said. He opened the drawer of his writing-table and took 
a roll of gold coins. 'Accept this to go on with. I will 
look after you.' I returned home. A few days later a man 
from the police, whom I had never seen, brought me a 
watchmaker's license, under the name of Charles William 
Naundorff. I was then left undisturbed till 1812. I then 
removed to Spandau. This was in obedience to M. Le Coq's 
orders, with the strongest recommendations to be very 
discreet, as the slightest indiscretion would ruin me ; that 
the King was not master to do as he pleased; it was 
absolutely imperative I should use a borrowed name to save 
me from Napoleon, against whose influence the Prussian 
Government could not protect me. M. Le Coq then 
examined, attentively, the Naundorff passport, to see 
whether the description could in any way fit me. ' Black 
hair I ' he read in a loud voice. ' Black eyes I No, that 
does not do at all. Take care to tell the Magistrate what I 
told you. Say your papers are with the President of the 
Police, and that, therefore, it is to him the municipal 
authorities must apply. I'll see to it.' He wrote on a paper 
the names of Charles William, which. he put in his pocket. 
When I got to Spandau the magistrate asked for my papers 
for the purpose of conferring on me the rights of burgher. I 
replied what M. Le Coq had advised. My name was then 
inscribed on the Register, and I received permission to 


reside in that town. I wonder if M. Le Coq had forgotten 
what had been agreed, for he gave the burgomaster my name 
as Charles Louis Naundorff. Notwithstanding this slip of 
the pen (assuming it may have been by inadvertence), I 
obtained the right under the names of Charles William. The 
document conferring upon me the rights of citizenship was 
duly registered, and contains the proof that I produced no 
papers except a certificate of good conduct delivered by the 
President of Police, Le Coq." 

So great a favour and so startling an infringe- 
ment of the law could only have been accorded 
and committed in the case of a Royal personage. 
As late as the 19th November, 1808, a general 
order had been promulgated, imperiously exacting 
that Prussian nationality be vouched for by the 
certificate of birth before any individual could 
possibly be admitted to the rights of burghership 
in any town whatsoever in Prussia, foreigners 
to be only admitted as citizens after naturalisation, 
and that only after ten years' residence in Prussia. 
In all cases certificate of birth was exacted. 


Ignorant people, the everyday bumpkins, who 
believe in Truth, Justice, Equity, Honour, etc., 
feel surprised, astounded, and indignant at the 
mere suggestion that all these exquisite attributes 
of the Divine should Lave been disregarded in 
Louis XVII.'s case. How could it have been 
possible ? So clear a case ! 

Good people, the same disregard of honour, 


justice, etc., is practised daily and hourly, now, 
yes, now, to-day, to-morrow, and for ever, as long 
as nations' eyes remain shut to the frightful, 
privileged abuses of everything connected with 
Power, and suffer lawyers in Parliament. 

Anything can be done ! Any crime perpetrated ; 
As it was then, so it is now. The Press is the 
only engine which might in these days remedy 
this awful state of things. But the Press is venal 
. . . and I see no hope anywhere of reform. 

The Prince's Acts of Burghership are extant on 
the public records in Spandau and Brandenburg ; 
other traces of him at Crossen. His marriage to 
Johanna Einert (or Einers, as he spells it) was 
celebrated in his own private sitting-room, as 
though he were a Royal personage. No certificate, 
no passport, "no nothing!" but the Prussian 
Government smoothed over all legal requirements 
and ordinances. No questions were asked. 

In spite of which, Courtiers, Bonapartists, 
Orleanists, Republicans (just as corrupt and 
callous as the Royalist Governments they revile) 
all vie with each other in refusing to redress a 
great and cruel wrong, and have the audacity to 
echo the victim's sister's Jesuitical words : " All 
this proves nothing ! " 



THE heading of this article, selected from a 
formidable parcel of newspaper cuttings on the 
"QUESTION Louis XVII." signifies in English 

I have chosen it, as I consider that it bears out 
the burthen of my argument the argument I 
sustain throughout the whole of my pages ; that 
is to say : the ridiculous and impertinent absence 
of " JUSTICE." Old time grows older ; evolution 
ever young is so slow ; so that although history 
of all ages records the same infamies, time brings 
neither justice nor compensation to the victims. 

The analogy between the two cases, as drawn 
by Mr. Henri Provins, is or ought to be invaluable ; 
the victim of French jingoism not having, even 
in this " enlightened " age, received the bare 
compliment of that promotion such as is his due ; 
and no compensation, even, offered him for the 
monstrous and ridiculous injustice so cruelly heaped 
upon him and his family since nearly fifteen years. 

This article " OLD TIMES . . . SAME CUSTOMS " 



also explains in a moderate, lucid, and business- 
like fashion the reasons why, in 1814, the Allies 
judged it expedient to put Louis XVIII. on the 
throne of France, and to ignore Louis XVII. ; 
thus proving my theory that, so long as a country 
has money and power, it would be absurd to speak 
of it as " dislwnoured" no matter what scurvy 
trick it may play the defenceless victim of " STATE 

The Empress Josephine died on the 29th May, 
1814, the day before the treaty (settled on the 
23rd April) was signed. 


This article appeared in the "Journal d'Asnieres 
et de la Banlieue de lOuest de Paris" . . . 
25th November, 1898. 


Mr. Henri Provins is a well-known authority on the Louis 
XVII. question. We therefore deemed it expedient to send 
him the series of articles lately published by us, in which Mr. 
A. Gromier * and Mr. Jean Perraud, discussing the Dreyfus 
Affair, commented on that other obscure and not yet 
completely cleared up point of our national history. 

We now publish the note supplied to us by Mr. Henri Provins 
as the result of the interview he had with Mr. A. Gromier. 

'Founders, in the year 1865 of the Astociation Internationale. 
Economique des amis de la Paix Sociale" with the object of preparing 
an " Union Douantere Europ&nne." This Association included the 
names of a considerable number of distinguished personages, especially 
French ones ; Armand Barbes, Louis Blanc, President Carnot, Ch. 
Floquet, Victor Hugo, Jean Mace", Henry Martin, Elisee Reclus, Jules 
Simon, Schoelcher, Viennot, etc., etc. 


" The comparison drawn between the cases of LoiuY XVII. 
and Dreyfus appears to me decidedly opportune. 

" We will admit that, at the time of the negotiations 
between Talleyrand and the Allies in 1814, Louis XVII. may 
not have seemed a fit representative of the Crown, but (the 
Restoration of the Monarchy having been decided) there is 
no doubt but what Louis XVII. alone was legitimate heir to 
the throne of France. In ancient times, the Crown her 
strength as well as her weak point was neither matter for 
fancy nor speculation. The Crown was the symbol of a 
principle as well as of a law. 

" Eldest succeeded Eldest. 

" Charles VL, although demented, succeeded and reigned 
as King. 

"Charles VII., foolish and indolent, heir to a kingdom 
distracted by the rival factions of Armagnac and Burgundy ; 
profoundly humiliated by the Treaty of Troyes which made 
Henry V. of England, King of France, nevertheless, remained 
the King. 

" What is a country but a large commercial firm 1 To 
ensure the well-being of such an establishment, more than an 
intelligent, respectable and devoted administration is required. 

" It must inspire confidence, and, to secure that confidence, 
its administration must be founded on a solid basis. Its 
duration, its stability, depends on that confidence which allows 
time to work and weld the divergences of multitudes of 

" It, alone, authorises the development of those projects to 
which extension and credit may safely be given. 

" It is precisely its durability which warrants the adoption 
of measures extending over considerable periods ; facilitates 
the raising and locking up of important capital and ensures its 
due repayment. 

"Philip Augustus, Philip le Bel, Louis XL, Louis XII., 
Henri IV., Louis XIII., ruled wisely. They had time before 
them. They knew that what they conceived would be carried 
out, and that, after them, the chain would remain linked. 

"It was the feeling of stability which gave France such 
Ministers as Sully, Richelieu, Mazarin, Colbert, etc. 


" It certainly was not the Allies' business to secure the 
stability of France. 

" But it was to their interest to gain their ends by main- 
taining a France with a Government which would guarantee 
to them peaceful possession and the advantages of their 
conquests. They well knew what Louis XVIII. was. They 
appreciated his lack of probity, his fierce desire to reign at all 
costs. They knew he would make any terms to attain that 

" This was a guarantee the Allies preferred to all others. 

"The throne having been vacated through the Empress 
Marie Louise's flight from the capital, disturbance and 
incoherence prevailing everywhere, the door was opened to 
every kind of intrigue. On the day the Allies marched into 
Paris, M. de Mortefontaine, that very evening, in his Salons 
(Faubourg S. Honore) received about 300 members of the old 
French nobility, almost all of them "Smigrts" from those 
hotbeds of Courtly flattery and intrigue, Coblenz, Verona, 
Mittau, Memel, London and Hartwell. 

"From the year 1792 these time-servers had been accustomed 
to look on " Monsieur" (Comte de Provence) as rallying centre. 
When Louis XVII.'s escape from the Temple was announced, 
the child's safety was regarded as a matter of annoyance ; and 
the occurrence as an element of division rather than of 

" The farce which had been enacted in the Temple ; the 
substituting another child for the young King ; the false 
death certificate, obligingly furnished these " frnigrts " with 
excuses which dovetailed in with their own inclinations, their 
pretended 'honour' and . . . their interests. During the 
Consulate and Empire the Comte de Provence had been the 
centre of Compromise. 

" A first crime inevitably leads to others. In the foremost 
rank of these members of the Royalist movement figured 
Archbishop de Pradt, Abbe" de Montesquieu, Abb6 Louis, etc. 

" Of what interest to these holy men could Louis XVII. 
be ? Bear in mind that this child, so long confined in prisons, 
had had no education ; no religious instruction ; he had not 
been confirmed ; he had not received the Sacrament ; the 


training and etiquette of Courts were unknown to him ; he 
had had to lead the life of an outlaw. By these pillars of 
the Church, his misfortunes were considered as so many stains. 

"How could they hesitate between the falsehood of 
Orthodoxy and the truth of Heterodoxy ? True, no blame 
could be attached to the young King ; but why should they 
waver in their choice their duty, . or their ecclesiastical 
principles ? 

" They joined hands with Talleyrand, an unfrocked Bishop ; 
they advised the Czar of Russia and Frederick William 
King of Prussia ; they sent to Nesselrode, Castlereagh and 
Hardenberg that France desired Louis XVIII. 

" It would be idle to attempt, in a newspaper article, to 
give a list of the infamies of every description; the mon- 
strosities of every size and shape, fruits of the Usurpation of 
1814. The downfall of Charles X. ; the Duchess of 
AngoulSme's forty years of tears; the expulsion of the 
Bourbons from all the thrones of Europe ; other wrenches 
. . . notably that of the temporal power of the Popes, so 
intimately bound up with the grandeur and prestige of 
Monarchical Order in France. All these, to the philosopher 
as well as to the educated man, must appear as so many 
protests from the God of Truth and Justice against the 
most scandalous iniquity which, since nineteen centuries, 
had besmirched the history of any people. 

" Is Dreyfus guilty ? 

" Whether from regard for the common-sense of those who 
first tried Alfred Dreyfus ; whether from regard for their 
honour for a long while I hoped against hope ... I almost 
hoped Dreyfus was guilty. I still cling to that hope in spite 
of the agonising reflections which the course of subsequent 
events has imposed on me. 

" Besides common-sense and honour, both perspicacity and 
discernment should have guided the members of the first 
Court-Martial (1894). As far be it from me to utter 
incriminations against as to speak harshly of those members 
of the Bourbon family who have refused to acknowledge 
Louis XVIL, or even of Him who is the Supreme Head of 
the Church. 


" As were several of Dreyfus' first Judges, they may have 
been deceived. 

" Those who must be blamed, aye, curst, are those judges 
of second and third hand ; those who deal blows ; those who 
have dealt blows and continue to strike right and left, care- 
lessly, maliciously, and falsely, stirring up strife ; disturbing 
our country, recklessly, wantonly, for their own private 
ends ; from sheer love of notoriety, or what is worse 
shortsighted, narrow-minded confessional motives. 

" This mischief, in great measure, is due to a portion of 
the Catholic Clergy, who dread the spread of the patch of 
oil be it Israelite or Protestant ; due to the professional 
man who goes about raving and pleading that, in military 
matters, an independent opinion is incompatible with 
patriotism ; due to the ferocious and easily-gulled citizen 
who remains blind to the fact that Right is the first element 
of Duty, which should teach him to dominate his weakness 
for lucre ; and that material benefit, however great, cannot 
honourably be placed in the balance against outraged truth 
and victorious crime. 

"Mr. Gromier and Mr. Perraud have rendered good service 
in so carefully drawing analogies between the extinguishing 
process devised in the cases of both Louis XVII. and 

" At an interval of eighty years the same pack of curs are 
found yelping at their heels. 


" 25th November, 1898." 

" We gladly publish these valuable and searching comments 
vibrating with true love of country; right and proper 


A bon entendeur, Salut ! 



HEADERS, who may chance to wish to know a little more are 
referred for information to : 

Ami de la Verity Un Survivance du Hoi Martyr. (1883.) 
R^ponse a Mg"- de Besson. (1884.) 

Un arret sans valeur. (1885.) 

Angoul&me, Duchesse d' Me"moires. (1823.) 
Antoine, A. Several works on Louis XVII. and Louis XVIII. 
Barre, Gruau de la Intrigues De>oile"es. (1846.) 
Infortunes du Dauphin. (1836.) 
Appel a la Conscience publique. (1875-80.) 
En politique point de justice. (1851.) And 

many other works, articles, etc. 
Beauchamp, A. de Les Faux Dauphins. 
Eonnefon, J, de Le Baron de Richemont. (1908.) 
Bruneau Mathurin Memoirs etc. (1818.) 
Burton, Ed Le dernier Dauphin de France. (1884.) 

Memoires d'uno Ali^n^e. (Hersilie Rouy.) (1883.) 
Memoires d'une feuille de papier. (1882.) 
Cltry. Journal de. (1798.) 

Cochelet. (Mile.) Memoires de la Reine Hortense. (1836.) 
Daymonaz. Several works. 

Desportes, Abbe". Le Frere de la Duchesse d'Angoulfcme. (1888.) 
Duranti Le Comte Le Roi mort qui vit, and other works. 
Delrosay. La Question Louis XVII. (1890.) 
Dictionnaire des Condamn^s de la Revolution. (1796.) 
Fame, Jules Plaidoirie de. (1874.) 
Fertin, E. de Histoire Populaire de Louis XVII. (1884.) 
Friedrichs, Otto Un Crime Politique. (1884.) 

,, Correspondance intime de Louis XVII. (1904.) 

And innumerable other works. 
Gaugler, Baron de L' Enfant du Temple. (1891.) 
GuJriviere, A. J. Morin Souvenirs. (1832.) 
Hanson. The Lost Prince. (1854.) 
Uapde. Relations Historiques des Evenements funebres de la nuit 

du 13 F^vrier, 1820. (1820.) 

Haywardy A Diaries of a Lady of Quality. (1864.) 
Herisson, Le Comte d' Le Cabinet noir. (1887.) 

Autour d'une Revolution, (1888.) 



Hue, F Dernieres Annees du Regne et de la Vie de Louis XVI. 


Lacroix. Le Vrai Roi de France. (1885.) 

Lafont, d'Aussone Lettres anecdotiques and politiques. (1832.) 
Lanne, Ad Une Officine Royale de Falsifications. (1900.) 
Louis XVII. ou le Secret de la Revolution. (1904.) 
Le Mystere de Quiberon. (1904.) 
Le Chartier. Le Salut de la France. (1884.) 
Meves, Augustus Louis XVII. (1868.) 

The Prisoner of the Temple. (1860.) 

Monoid, Blanche de Princesse Amelie de Bourbon. 
Montrey, Comte de Les d' Orleans devant 1'Histoire. 
Normandie, Charles Louis, Due de Infortunes du Dauphin. (1836.) 
,, La Doctrine Celeste and other 

occult works, translated by 
the Rev. C. Cosson. (1840.) 

Normandie, Memoires du Due de (Richemont.) (1831.) 
Osmond. Le Roi de France. (1884.) 

Fleur de Lys. (1906.) 

Perceval, The Rev. G. C. Translation of Les Infortunes. (1888.) 
Provins, Henri Le dernier Roi Legitime. (1889.) 
Richemont. Memoires d'un Contemporain. (1846.) 
Rochefoucauld. V te Sosthene de la, Memoires. (1837.) 
Stella, Maria Lady Newborough. (1883.) 
Stevens, de Grasse, Miss. The lost Dauphin. (1887.) 
Stormy Petrel. The Peasant Seer of Gallardon. (1891.) 
Trdfouel, Jules Souvenirs. (1878-83.) 
Weber. Memoirs. (1806-09.) 
Weldon, Mrs. Louis XVII. founder of Modern Spiritualism. (1894.) 


La LegitimiU. (6/- a year.) 21 Rue Damremont, Paris. 

Revue Historique. (10/- a year.) 30 Rue Duperre", Paris. 

Historians. Eckard, de Beauchesne, Chantelauze, de la Sicotiere, 
Feuillet de Conches, Simien Despreau, Cabet, Gozzoli, 
Lamartine, Louis Blanc, Chateaubriand, Gabourd, De Conny, 
Thiers, Goret, Goguelat, Tessier, Louis et Pierre Veuillot, G. 
Lendtre, Larousse, Severine, Colin La Herte, Victor Stenay, 
Turquan, Vitrac et Galopin, de Bonnefon, Pierre Gaumy, 
&c. &c. &c. 

Memoirs of M me Campan, Comtesse d'Adhemar, Baronne d'Oberkirch, 
Marquise de Crequi, Duchesse d'Abrantes, M me de Genlis, 
Comtesse de Boigne, &c. &c. &c. 

Lives of Hoche, Pichegru, de Frotte, de Charette, Tom Paine, 
Josephine, Napoleon, &c. &c. &c. 


, DR., 44. 
Abridged Account of the Mis- 
fortunes of the Dauphin, xv., 

19, 23, 48. 
Affaire du Collier (Queen's 

Necklace), 8, 34. 
Aglae, 35, 4?. 
Almanach de Gotha, 13. 
Alexander, Czar of Russia, 66, 

82, 92. 

Amelie, xix., 35. 
Andigne", Ge^ra! d', 11, 43. 
Angouleme, Duchesse d', 7, 10, 

14, 15, 20, 24, 32, 34, 43, 45, 

Antinori, Cavaliere Giuseppe, 


Arab Jew. (See Jew.) 
Archives, 47, 58. 
Arden, Lord, 19, 22. 
Artois, Comte d', 35. 
Artois, Comtesse d', 34. 
Atkyns, Mrs., 21, 22. 
Austrian frontier, 62. 
Avaux, Abbe* d', 4. 
Appendix, xvi., 88, 93. 
Autres Temps Memes Mceurs, 


Baron, 37. 

Barras, 7, 32, 37. 

Barre, Gruau Comte de la, xiii., 


Barret, Mmo., 20. 
Beauharnais, Josephine, 32, 48, 

67, 82. 

Beauharnais, Gt'neral de, 36. 
Beauharnais, Eugene de, 48. 
Bellingham, 19. 
Berlin, 66, 67, 76. 
Berliner, 65. 
Berri, Due de, 16, 34. 
Bern, Duchesse de, 54. 
Betrancourt, 16, 49. 
Blanc, Louis, 89. 
Bohemia, 62. 
Borderland, 1894, 51. 
Botot, 37. 

Bourbon, xvii., 17, 92. 
Bourgogne, Due de, 34. 
Braille, v., vi., xvi. 
Brandenburg xii., 87. 
Bruneau, Mathurin, 5, 27, 29. 

(See engraving.) 
Brunswick, Duke of, 62, 63. 
Buonaparte, 3, 7, 59. 
Buonaparte, Pauline, 16. 
Bureau de Bienfaisance, 12. 
Burghership, 79, 86, 87. 

BALAFRE, Se, 19. 
Barbes, 89. 


Cadoudal, Georges, 49. 

97 G 


Cain, Duchesse, 52. 

Calonne, Bertha de, v. 

Capet, Louis Charles, 28, 32. 

(See engraving.) 
Capponi, Villa, 10, 13. 
Carmen, Sylva, v. 
Carnot, President, 89. 
Caron, 16, 18, 33. 
Carpier, 18. 

Garr, Lady, (Jane) 19, 20. 
Castlereagh, 92. 
Chanterenne Mme. de, 24. 
Charette, General de, 16, 49. 
Charles Louis, (xv.) (Portrait 

plate), 3, 4, 26, 33, 39, 46, 

59, 83, 86. 

Charles Louis Napoleon, 49. 
Charles, Monsieur, 2. 
Charles X., 7, 34, 92. 
Choppart, Dr., 44, 45. 
Cle"ry, 16, 49. 
Coblentz, 91. 
Commier, 9, 38. 
Cosmier, xv. 
Constant, Benjamin, 11. 
Conci'ergerie, 21. 
Coudray, Georges Marotte du, 

52, 53. 
Coudray, xiii., xiv., Charles 

Alexandre Marotte du, 52, 53, 

58, 56, 81. 

Coudray, Comte du, 52. 
Crossen, xvii., 16, 87. 


Dauphin % Le. (See Duchesse 

Dauphin, Lou, Joseph Xavier, 
xv., 1. 

Dauphin, Louis Charles, Charles 

Louis, 1. 
Dauphins, False, 2-5, 27-29, 

36, 45, 46, 51, 52. 

27 March, 1785, 1. 

21 January, 1793, 2. 

19 January, 1794, vi., 24, 30. 
27 July, 1794, vi., 31, 32. 

31 October, 1794, 32, 42. 
1 November, 1794, 33. 
9 November, 1794, 41. 
31 March, 1795, 42. 
4 June, 1795, vl, 43. 

7 June, 1795, 43. 

8 June, 1795, 9, 24, 32, 33, 
38. Intr. , vi. 

9 June, 1795, vi. , 39. 
12 June, 1795, 43. 

3 September, 1795, 24. 
15 March, 1804, 47. 
15 April, 1807, 21. 

20 April, 1808, 48, 

19 November, 1808, 86. 
23 April, 1808, 89. 

29 May, 1814, 89. 

30 May, 1814, 89. 

4 March, 1820, 18. 

17 January, 1831, xvii. 
19 July, 1836, xvii. 

10 August, 1845, xiii., 8L 
8 June, 1888, 20. 

25, November, 1898, 95. 
Delft, xiii., 53. 
Demidoff, Princess Mathilde, 


Demidoff, Prince Anatole, 14, 
Dessault, Dr., 16, 44, 45. 
Diebingen, forest of, 71. 
Dodd, Maria, 29. 
Doublet, Dr., 44, 45. 
Dresden, 10, 62. 


Dreyfus, Alfred, ix. , 57, 92. 
Dreyfusards, 81. 
Druco Bubble, 64. 
Dumangin, Dr., 44. 


Egmont, Earl of, 23. 

Einert, Johanna (Einers), xviii., 


Elba, 40. 

Elisabeth, Madame, 17. 
Enghien, Due d', 16, 47-49, 61. 
Erckman, Chatrian, 75. 
Ettenheim, Castle of, 47. 
Events of the Temple, 32. 

FALSE DAUPHINS. (See Dauphins 

and engravings.) 
Favre, Jules, ix., 58. 
Ferte", Marquis de la, 14. 
Forte", Marquise de la, 14. 
Florence, 10. 
Florence, 10. 
Floquet, Ch., 89 
Fouche", 49, 59, 60, 66, 70. 
France, Anatole, xiv., 55, 56, 


Frankfort on the Main, 60, 64. 
Fr<$de"ric, 59, 64, 65. 
Frederic Leschot, 60. 
French Hospital, 12. 
Friedrichs, Otto, xvl-xx., 11, 


Friedrichs, 59, 64-70, 72. 
Frotte', Ge'ne'ralde, 16, 49. 
Fualdes, 16. 

Gaumy, Pierre, 57. 
Girardin, Comtesse de, 20. 
Gisors, 31. 

Gomin, 38, 39, 41, 43, 44. 
Gommier, xv., 9, 38. 




Hapsburg, xvii. 

Hardenberg, Prince of, 84. 92. 
Hartwell, 91. 
HeUuy, 12. 

He'risson, Comte d', 13. 
Hervagault, 27, 45. 
Hildprandt, Baronne Fre"de"- 

rique, 10. 

Histories, 1700-1800, 9, 39. 
Hoche, Ge'ne'ral, 16, 49. 
Hoffmann, Mr., 10. 
Hoffmann, Louisa, 10. 
Holland, King of, 49. 
Hortense, Queen, 48, 49. 
Hugo, Victor, 91. 
Humbert, Madame, ix. 

ILL-USED, 15, 22. 

Ignorance of French, 23, 36, 60. 

Incurables, Enfants, v. 

Index, xxi. 

Interme'diaire, xiv. 

JEANROY, DB., 44. 

Jew, Arab, x., xiil, 64, 75, 81. 


Jew, Potsdam, 55. 

Jew, Postdam, 55, 75, 81. 

Jew, Prussian, xii. 

Jew of Weimar, xiii. 

Jew, Polish, xiii. 

Jew, German, xii. 

Jew, Neustadt-Eburswald, xiii. 

Joly, M. de, 36. 

Josephine, 16, 17, 32, 37, 46, 49, 

59, 61, 66, 70, 82, 89. 
Josset, Alfred, v. 
Juif Polonais, 75. 
Judge, Court of Appeal, (Lord 

Esher), 7. 
Justin, Abbe", 16. 

KARL, 6. 

Ketteringham Hall, 21. 
Knight Templars, 3. 
Kucharski, 5. (See engraving.) 

LABORI, ix. 

Lafayette, 29. 

La Forte", Marquis de, 14. 

Lanne, Ad., xvi., 57. 

Larousse, xii. 

Lasne, 42, 44. 

Lassus, Dr. de, 44. 

Laurent, 9, 16, 32, 33, 37, 39, 42 


Lauriscus, 16. 
Lebrun, Mme. Vige"e, p. 5, and 

Lecoq, President of Police, 83, 

L^gitimite", La (See Book List), 

p. 96. 

Len6tre, G., 31 

Leschot, Fr($de"ric, 60, 65. 

Le Blanc, Bourbon, 38 

Le Normant des Varannes, 51. 

Lindsey, Madame, 11, 12. 

List of Books, 95. 

Logographe, 36. 

London, 91. 

London, Brighton & South Coast 

Railway Co., vii. 
Loos (engraver), 39. 
Louis (formation of letters), 4, 

(and engraving). 
Louis XVI., 1, 13, 18, 80. 
Louis XVII., 2, 9, 15, 27, 28, 

38, 45, 49, 54, 82, 90, vi, xiv. 
Louis Charles Capet, xv. 
Louis, Charles, 3, 4. 
Louis Joseph Xavier, xvi. 
Louis XVIII. 2, 7, 17, 45, 52, 

82, 91. 

Louis, King of Holland, 49. 
Louis, Napoleon, 7, 32, 52. 
Louis, Philippe, 7, 28, 52, 75. 
Louis, Abbe", 91. 
Luciniere, Comte de Cornulier, 

Luther, Doctor Martin, 71. 


MME. ROT ALE (See AngoulSme). 
Marassin (Marsin), 5, 28, (and 

Marie, 47. 

Marie Antoinette, 1, 31, 21, 80. 
Marie Louise, 91. 
Mace, Jean, 89. 
Mathieu, 41. 
Martin de Gallardon, 16. 
Martinique, 38. 


Melbourne, Lord, 53. 

Memel, 91. 

Mdmoires d'une Feuillo de 

papier, 52, 54, 80. 
Mdves, Augustus, xvil 2, 4, 19, PASSPORT, 54, 57, 74, 75, 76, 

Paine, Tom, 29. 

Orloff, Madame, 14. 
Osmond, 57. 


Palmers ton, Lord, 53. 

21, 34, 55. 
Mittau, 91. 
Monck, General, 48. 

Montmorin, 48, 49, 50, 59, 62, Peel > Si r Robert, 53. 
66, 70. Pelletan, Dr., 44, 45. 

Montesquieu, Abbe de, 91. Perceval, Spencer, 16, 19, 53. 

Perceval, George C., Rev., xv., 


Permit of residence, 77. 
Perrein, Claude, 27. 
Petzold, 16. 
Pichegru, General, 16, 49. 

Mortefontaine, M. de, 91. 


THE BLIND, iv., v., xiv. 
National Assembly, 35. 

Napoleon, 17, 48, 62, 6!, 82. * "*- 

"KT '11 f\f\ ** A "3 T 1. ~i 4 . 

Naville, Mr., 60. T) ,. r _, f . t . ,_ 

Philippe Egaktl, 15. 

Nesselrode, 92. ,, ,. 

ttta j J* o , Police, Secret, 51, 86. 

^ U S % > R o' R 'AI' $ Polish Jew, xlv., and Jew. 

Naund^ff xi C?mL d Pofgerville, M. de, 39. 

75* 8^. sV"' ' ' Potsdam ' 55 ' 75 - 

Naundor'ff, 61, 62, 69,75,77, 78. ^ a "' ^ W ' 

xr _<* ^ j r Pradt, Archbishop de, 91. 

Naundorff, Godefroy, 69. p 

Naundorff, Charles William, 69, p r ^ z ^ 


Naundorff, Charles Louis, 83. 
Naundorffists, 81. 
Nevill, Lady Dorothy, 21. 
Nevill, Mr. Ralph, 21. 
Newman St. 8, Oxford St, 12. 

Normandy, Duke of, 1,6, 12, 28. " 

Prussian Hussars, 62. 

Normandy, Duchess of, 20, 22. T> , 

/' Prussian deserter, 67, 68, 

Notes and Queries, xiv. ,> -p- . nn oe M 

Prussia, King of, 20, 85, 92. 

O Prussian Jew, xiL, 75. 


Orleans, Helena of Mecklenburg, Rattsweil, 80. 

Provence, Comte de, 2, 31, 38, 


Provence, Comtesse de, 34. 
Provins, xvi., Henri, 37, 57, 88, 

Prussia, xvi., 54, 65, 70, 82. 


Reclus, Elise*. 89. 


Repenties, Comte de, 16. 

Reverchon, 41. 

Richemont, 2, 3, 4, 27, 28, 81. 

(See engraving.) 
Robespierre, 7, 16, 31, 32. 
Rochefoucauld, Vicomte SOB- 

thene de la, 19. 
Rochow, M. de, 7. 
Rouy, Hersilie, 54. 
Rousseau, Jules, v., vi. 



Schoelcher, 89. 

Sebright, Sir Thomas, 10. 

Semnicht, 62. 

Shibboleth, 3, 4, 9. 

Silesia, Baron of, 75. 

Simon Antoine, vi., xvi., 16, 20, 

21, 30, 31, 35. 
Simon, Madame, 35. 
Simon, Jules, 89. 
Skeleton, 11, 33, 43. 
Sonnenfield, Madame, 79, 83. 
Spandau, 85. 
" State Reasons," 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 

22, 53, 89. 
Stead, W. T., 51, 69. 
Stralsund, 62. 
Switzerland, 60. 

TALLEYRAND, 90, 92. 
Temple, Palace and Prison of 
the, 9, 11, 29, 33, 35, 40, 91. 
Thomas, Rees Goring, 10. 
Tison, 33. 

Toulon, 84. 

Tourzel, Mme. de, 24. 

Transylvania, 81. 

Treaty, 1814, 89, 92. 

Treaty, 1871, 58, 69. 

Trdfouel, Jules, 52, 53, 55, 75, 


Treherne, George, 10. 
Treinpretzen, 75. 
Tribunal of the Seine (1836), 


Vatican, 47. 
Vernon-Lord, 14. 
Verona, 91. 
Victoria, Queen, 53. 
Viennot, 89. 
Vincennes, 48, 49, 59. 
Viviers, Bishop of, 45. 
Votes for Women, viii. 


Wedel - Jarlsberg (Veptel; 

Ve-tel), 63. 
Weiler, 78. 

Weimar, 69, 72, 77, 81. 
Wesel, 63. 

Westphalian army, 68. 
Westphalian deserter, 68. 
Williams, Eleazar, 2, 3, and 


Windward Islands, 42. 
Wismar, 69, 72. 
Wittenben?, 72, 74. 

Printed by Cowan & Co., Limited, Perth. 



Le ciel oat noir, Is terre eat blanche 

Cloches, carillonnez gaiment 
Jdsus eat ne, la Yiergo poncho 

Sur Lui son visage charmant. 
La neige au chauino coud ses franges, 
Mais aur le toit a'ouvre le Ciel 
Et, tout en blanc, le Chceur des Anges 

Chante aux bergers : Noel ! Noel ! 


Pas de Courtines festoime'es 
Pour preserver 1' Enfant du froid 
Rien que les toiles d' araignees 
Qui pendent des poutres du toit 
U tremble sur la paille fraiche, 
Ce cher petit Enfant Jesus, 
Et pour le chauffer dans sa creche 
L'ane et le boeuf soufflent dessus. 



The sky is dark, the earth is white, 
The bells ring out with joyful might. 
A gracious Babe, on Christmas morn 
la unto erring sinners born. 
Wrapp'd in her veil, He lies at rest 
Upon His Virgin Mother's breast, 
While Angels high in Heav'n above 
Watch o'er the Holy Babe with love. 


The Eastern Star stands out so bright, 
Three Shepherd Kings by its wondrous light 
Set out with gifts and precious things 
To offer to the King of Kings. 
They find Him in a stable bare, 
Nought but the ox and ass are there. 
Their sweet breath keeps the Infant warm, 
While Seraph hosts shield him from harm. 


No altar rare, no vestments fine, 
And yet all kneel before that shrine ; 
No jewels' sheen, no candle light, 
And yet that chamber's shining bright 
The pastors wise, the Mother mild 
Worship awestruck that Holy Child ; 
While Herald Angels shout and sing 
Hail ! Glory to the Eternal King. 



O douce fille du printemps 
Qu'un Soleil de Mai vit e'clore ; 
Ta grace est plus modeate encore 
Que la modeste fleur des champs. 
Ton doux visage est un jardin 
Embaume 1 de tieurs immortelles 
Que trouvent tou jours aussi belles 
Chaque soir et chaque matin. 


La violette est en tes yeux ; 
La rose en ta bouche adorable ; 
Et dans sa blancheur ineffable 
Ta chair cache un lys radieux. 


Mais, qui cultive chaque jour 
Les flours de ce divin parterre ? 
Moi, j'en suis le propridtaire, 
Mais le jardinier, c'est 1'amour. 



A Floral Sanctuary. 

O ! gentle child of soft spring hours, 
Born of May's sweet breath and showers ; 
Thy grace as mild as chaste field flowers ; 
Their charm as gracious as thy smile. 
Thy gentle presence fragrance gives 
To myriads of immortal flowers 
Which glow from morn till twilight, 
And lovelier beam with fading hours. 


In thy deep eyes the violets hide ; 
The roses in thy lips abide ; 
And, to thy bosom so warm and white, 
The radiant lily lends her light. 


But, who owns this treasure, this garden fair ? 
This Eden of blossoms choice and rare ? 
'Tis mine, this dainty shrine ! 
This fairy bower is mine ! 




1 Volume of Verse by CH. GOUNOD (Esprit), illustrated, 

price 10s. 

The Incorporated 

National Lending Library 

For the Blind, 

125, Queen's Road, Bayswater, London, W. 














Secretary ano Xibrarian. 

Miss E. W. AUSTIN. 





The Rt. Hon. LORD COLLINS. (Lord of Appeal in Ordinary.) 

The Rt. Hon. LORD ALVERSTONE, G.C.M.G. (Lord Chief Justice.) 

The Rt. Hon. SIR HERBERT H. COZENS HARDY. (Master of the Rolls.) 




The Hon. Mr. JUSTICE EVE. 




The Rt. Hon. H. H. ASQUITH, K.C., M.P. 

J. F. P. RAWLINSON, Esq., K.C., M.P. 



prestDent. The Rt. HON. LORD ALVERSTONE, G.C.M.G. 
Wfce*preslJ)ent. LEONARD SARTORIS, Esq., Superintendent (R.C.J.). 


W: H. ROWE, Esq., Asst.- Pay master General (Supreme Court). 
FRANCIS A. STRINGER, Esq., Central Office (Supreme Court). 
Mr. ARTHUR SMITH, Asst.-Supt. (R.C.J.). 
Mr. G. J. PAUL, Asst.-Supt. (R.C.J.). 


W. R. GAFF, Esq., C.A., F.F.A., A.I.A., 53, New Broad Street, E.G. 

{Treasurer. Mr. F. w. PALES R.C.J.). 

Messrs. WYATT, WILLIAMS & Co., C.A., 14, Ironmonger Lane, E.G. 
C. E. STREDWICK, Esq., Solicitor's Dept., Treasury. 


Mr. ALBERT A. ALLAWAY, Room 424 (R.C.J.). 
Mr. GEORGE LODGE, Asst. Secretary. 

^Bankers. BANK OF ENGLAND, Law Courts Branch. 
All Communications to be addressed to the Secretary. 

Objects of the Fund. This Fund is established to provide, by 
Subscriptions of the Members and the Contributions of the Members 
of the Legal Profession and others, for the relief of Members during 
sickness or other infirmity, whether bodily or mental ; for insuring 
money to be paid on the death of Members or Member's wives, and 
for the provision of pensions upon retirement from the Staff after age 65. 

N.B. I am personally much interested in this Fund which is so 
poorly supported by this rich body of men that, at the end of the 
year 1907, the amount of pension to each attendant even had they 
been on duty thirty years would be but 6s. weekly (with no provision 
for their widows). I have not been asked to insert this advertisement 
for the Fund (copied from the Fund's prospectus), but do so on my own 
responsibility, hoping to obtain funds for a much needed and most 
deserving charity. Subscriptions to be forwarded to the Secretary. 




DC Weldon, Georgina 

137 Louis